BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 8 November (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Community Projects

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps he is taking to encourage individuals and organisations to engage in projects that benefit their local community.

Nick Hurd: Encouraging more social action is a key strand of the big society vision, so we are looking at ways to cut some of the red tape that gets in the way and are busy delivering programmes such as Community Organisers, Community First, the national citizen service and the social action fund.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he expand on how these initiatives will impact on the residents of South Basildon and East Thurrock and on what they could hope to see from such great ideas in the future?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for his positive reaction. I am aware that at least three wards, I think, in his constituency are eligible for the Community First grant programme. This is a fund designed to put money into the hands of neighbourhood groups to help them implement their own plans. It is focused on wards that blend high levels of deprivation with low levels of social capital, and I very much hope that he will engage personally in supporting constituents in those wards to maximise those particular opportunities.

Madeleine Moon: I declare an interest as a trustee of Community Service Volunteers, which had its Make a Difference day on Saturday last week, encouraging people to volunteer and make a difference in their community. What steps will the Government take to ensure that organisations such as Community Service Volunteers can reach out and encourage volunteers like Abbie, who is unemployed, to make a difference by working in her local Marie Curie shop?

Nick Hurd: Community Service Volunteers is a great organisation and it had a spectacularly successful day. The answer lies in trying to reduce some of the barriers, such as the red tape that I mentioned, that stop people getting involved. It is also important to try to inspire people to step up and get more involved. That is why we believe that programmes such as Community Organisers and Community First, which are about bringing communities together to identify what they want to change and inspiring them to work together to make that change happen, can be a very powerful intervention.

Mark Williams: The Minister will be aware that this is national trustees week. Will he address two particular concerns of that campaign? The first is that the number of young people being attracted to become trustees is very small indeed, and the other is the fact that more than half of charities have at least one vacancy on their board of trustees.

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. We all know the value and importance of the work of trustees and the ability of a really good set of trustees to transform the capability of a charity or voluntary organisation. It is important that the Government will announce some steps to promote wider awareness of the opportunity to take part in being a trustee.

Voluntary Sector

Tony Lloyd: What recent steps he has taken to support the voluntary sector.

Russell Brown: What steps he plans to take to support the voluntary sector.

Nick Hurd: I refer the hon. Members for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) to the open letter to the voluntary sector, which was sent to all MPs and published on the Cabinet Office website; it sets out our strategy for encouraging more social action and supporting civil society.

Tony Lloyd: The Greater Manchester centre for voluntary organisation estimates that a quarter of those employed by voluntary organisations are losing their jobs in this two-year period. Can the Minister honestly tell the voluntary sector through the House that with that level of cutbacks there really is a role for that sector? Volunteers need a structure in which to work.

Nick Hurd: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We all have to recognise that there is less money around so some difficult choices have to be made. I simply refer him to the statement made by his own leader to the BBC on Valentine’s day this year to the effect that he could not have protected the voluntary sector from local authority cuts. There is awareness of the challenge that we all face. I know that the sector in Manchester has benefited from the transition fund and that a bid has been put in to the infrastructure fund from the organisations that support front-line organisations. Eighteen wards in the city of Manchester and 69 in Greater Manchester are eligible for the Community First grant programme.

Russell Brown: People in my constituency who are living with cancer and other long-term conditions desperately need benefits advice. It is currently provided by Macmillan Cancer Support, Citizens Advice, Welfare Rights and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. I attended a meeting with these groups on Monday morning. Let me tell the Minister that they are under real pressure to find the financial wherewithal to go forward. Surely now is the time to make sure that these organisations have the financial support that is required to provide quality benefits advice.

Nick Hurd: I could not agree more. When I visited my local advice centre on Friday, I had a real sense of the strain and stress that its staff were experiencing. We have set aside a further £20 million of special funding for advice centres. There is also to be a short review to investigate what the Government can do to manage levels of demand on those working in that vital sector, and how we can make life easier for them.

Eleanor Laing: Does the Minister agree that voluntary groups set up by people who do what they do because they want to, and because they have a lifetime of experience in the field—one example is Home-Start in my constituency—often fulfil their roles not only in a more cost-effective way, but better than others?

Nick Hurd: Absolutely. Value is reflected in two ways, in terms of cost and in terms of the effectiveness of the support that is given. In my experience, volunteer-led organisations enjoy a different level of trust among the people whom they are trying to help.

Peter Bone: Would the Minister welcome increased Government spending to enable the voluntary sector to deal with human trafficking? If the money went through the Salvation Army, the big society could help all charities to look after victims.

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a good point, with which I have a great deal of sympathy.

Gareth Thomas: The latest survey of charity leaders by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations shows that 30% of them expect to cut jobs in the next three months, and that some 60% expect the economic situation, as it affects such organisations, to deteriorate over the next 12 months. Given that voluntary sector capacity is being reduced, is not the truth about the big society that, on the Minister’s watch, it is about to get smaller?

Nick Hurd: I dispute that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the leader of his party told the BBC in February that he would not make councils protect cash for voluntary groups. There is a hard economic reality here: a sector that receives £13 billion of taxpayers’ money cannot be immune to the requirement to contribute to a reduction in Government borrowing. The challenge now is for us to find a way of working together to mitigate the damage done to the voluntary sector in the short term, while preparing it for the real opportunities down the track to deliver more public services.

Open Government Partnership

James Clappison: What assessment he has made of the potential role of the open government partnership in promoting openness and transparency.

Francis Maude: Transparency is an idea whose time has come. It makes choice possible, it encourages accountability, and it can change lives. The United Kingdom Government are already the world leader in transparency, and the open government partnership will enable those huge benefits to be promoted to many other countries around the world.

James Clappison: The open government partnership is an interesting and exciting concept. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what are the key UK transparency commitments within it?

Francis Maude: All the principles underlying the partnership reflect things that we have already introduced: openness about Government spending, openness about salaries, openness about the internal workings of government, and an increase in the publication of outcome data about the way in which public services operate. We have said that commitment to and implementation of the principles of the open government partnership will increasingly be a material factor in decisions by the Department for International Development about where to place direct budget support for developing country Governments.

Denis MacShane: In the interests of open government, will the Minister agree to publish all the credit card expenses of Ministers and officials under the sum of £500 in all Departments, starting with the Housing Minister?

Francis Maude: It is good to hear the right hon. Gentleman being so enthusiastic about transparency. We have already published Government payment card data covering transactions between April and August this year, and we will continue to do so. We will publish the data for 2010 and 2011, and Departments will also have the option of publishing data for the previous year, when the last Government were in office. I look forward to enthusiastic support from the Labour party when the transactions made when it was in office are made public.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Minister for that response, and in particular for what he said about the last Government. I believe that the limit should be zero rather than £500, because we would not have known about the expenditure of the NHS on finger puppets if a higher limit had applied.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes the purist case for the disclosure of absolutely everything, but we have gone infinitely further than any Government have ever gone before in exposing the spending of Departments. Of course we will keep that under review, but the first thing we need to do is complete the publication of the data on transactions below £500, including some that took place under the last Government.

Jon Trickett: Given the pride the Minister obviously takes in transparency, is it not slightly odd that his Department, which leads on these matters for the whole Government, has the worst record in responding to freedom of information requests? Indeed, some people might think that is almost fishy. Since coming into office, the number of FOI requests answered on time by his Department has nosedived from 90% in March 2010 to only 42% in March this year. What do they have to hide? Will the Minister now tell us when he intends to get his house in order on FOI?

Francis Maude: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on his elevation to the shadow Cabinet.
	The Cabinet Office deals with FOI requests in respect of Cabinet papers under the last Government, and that takes some time to deal with because we need to consult former Ministers in that Government. Any FOI requests relating to the royal family also need to be dealt with sensitively, with a lot of consultation. I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not raise the issue of Government procurement cards, and does not echo the response of his colleague, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who said, when we published these data, that we had gone on a spending spree, when, in fact, we had cut spending under Government procurement cards by 10% compared with the record of his party.

Trade Union Facility Time

Karl McCartney: What the cost to the public purse was of the provision of trade union facility time by Government Departments in the last year for which figures are available.

Francis Maude: Total spend on trade union facility time across the civil service is estimated to be around £30 million a year, while in the public sector as a whole the estimate is £225 million. ACAS guidance suggests this system should be regularly reviewed. Strangely, we have not been able to find any evidence that it was reviewed under the last Government.

Karl McCartney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very revealing answer. He will be aware of the current scandal of public sector employees spending 100% of their time on union activities while still drawing their publicly funded salary. My constituents in Lincoln expect their thousands of pounds in taxes to be used to pay for public services, not union activities. This situation clearly does not—

Mr Speaker: Order. What I want is a question—in one sentence, very briefly, now.

Karl McCartney: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that as part of any consultation or meeting, such as the one he had today, he will fully examine this scandal?

Francis Maude: As I have said, we are going to consult on this. We will want to look very carefully at the phenomenon whereby large numbers of civil servants and other public servants are engaged full time as union officials at the
	taxpayers’ expense. There may be a case for some of this continuing, but certainly not on the scale we inherited from the Labour party.

Gerry Sutcliffe: But is there not also a point to be made about how much money is saved to the public purse by having good industrial relations? Instead of going backwards, should not the Minister be going forward and talking about how he could improve industrial relations?

Francis Maude: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make the case for why more and more taxpayers’ money should be spent on subsidising union officials, let him do so, and let him explain to his constituents why that is good value when what they want is taxpayers’ money to be spent on front-line public services, on which the most vulnerable people in our society depend.

Third Sector Contracts

Jonathan Ashworth: What recent progress he has made in increasing the number of central Government contracts secured by the third sector.

Oliver Letwin: Since May 2010 there have been 702 purchase orders for third sector services by the Department of Health alone. There have also been 94 contracts with third sector organisations from five different Departments: four from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 21 from the Ministry of Justice, 15 from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 47 from the Department for Work and Pensions and seven from the Department for Transport. Those contracts have a total value of more than £488 million. Unfortunately, I cannot say how that compares with the previous Government’s record as records were not kept at that time.

Jonathan Ashworth: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. In the last week, I met a voluntary third sector organisation in my constituency called Tolsam, which does a lot of valuable work with the young unemployed and those not in education, employment or training. Given the scale of the youth unemployment problem our country now faces, will Ministers consider introducing a requirement that third sector organisations that work with NEETs and the young employed are favoured when awarding contracts?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Gentleman, who I have discovered has a very honourable record of visiting social enterprises in his constituency, makes a good point. We do believe that there is great merit in including in public sector contracting provisions that reflect social value and social outcomes. We are working on that and we intend to proceed with it.

James Gray: The Government have launched the Contracts Finder website, which enables third sector companies to find Government contracts. How does the Minister intend to assess how successful that has been and will he publish figures to demonstrate whether or not it has worked?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have indeed launched the Contracts Finder website, and I did a bit of mystery shopping to check whether it was possible to use it. I am glad to be able to tell the House that it is a very useful thing. We have already received some feedback from businesses and third sector organisations that have been on the website, and where we have had that feedback we have responded to it. We will be looking at the overall effectiveness of the website in due course and reporting back to the House.

Social Enterprise

Julie Elliott: What steps he is taking to promote social enterprises.

Oliver Letwin: First, we now have Big Society Capital established—the initial investment was made in the summer. Secondly, we are moving ahead with the establishment of mutuals, with a new mutuals support programme; 45,000 staff are already in social enterprises in health care alone. Thirdly, we have promoted social enterprise in the Work programme, with two social enterprises as prime providers and about 500 more voluntary sector organisations as subcontractors.

Julie Elliott: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he believe that the Government and local authorities should be developing strategies to promote social enterprises? If so, why has he axed the clauses that would have made Departments do that from the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White)?

Oliver Letwin: We do not feel that it is necessary to legislate for strategies at a national and local level. The previous Government specialised in having lots of strategies and fulfilling none of them. By contrast, we are in favour of taking action, which is why we are working with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) to ensure, as I mentioned in answer to the previous question, that there is provision for social outcomes and social value to be measured in contracts. That is, of course, part of his Bill. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that when the Minister was conducting his philosophy seminars he had a rather more respectful and attentive audience, and that is what we should grant him.

Julian Huppert: Allia and Future Business are promoting social bonds to support social enterprises, such as the future business centre in my constituency. There has been a very good uptake by individuals and companies, but not by the banks. Will the Minister have discussions with the banks to encourage them to invest in these bonds, which provide a secure social investment asset?

Oliver Letwin: We believe that social impact bonds have an enormous role to play. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who has responsibility for the civil society, and I recently had a round table meeting with a group of social entrepreneurs and investors who are interested in investing in social enterprise. We
	are encouraging that and we are taking further steps through Big Society Capital to promote the use of social impact bonds. Of course our payment-by-results systems also make use of social impact bonds.

Head of the Civil Service

Bernard Jenkin: What plans he has for the future of the role of the head of the civil service.

Francis Maude: The roles of Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service are very different and were indeed separate roles until 1981. Following the announcement of the retirement of Sir Gus O’Donnell, the role of head of the civil service will, once again, be separated from the Cabinet Secretary role. The two individual roles will be more focused, and people can be appointed to each on the basis of the skills match to each role. An internal competition is under way to recruit the post holder from among existing permanent secretaries.

Mr Speaker: We need to leave time for the question.

Bernard Jenkin: Change is the watchword of the Prime Minister and change in government is a vital ingredient of the Government’s reform programme. How will the head of the civil service be able to lead and implement change if he does not have equal authority and equal access to the centre of government as he does now?

Francis Maude: He or she will have equal access and will exercise a decisive role in leading the reform of the civil service so that we can create a genuinely modern, progressive civil service that a modern Britain requires.

Mark Durkan: Is the Minister satisfied that with the split of the new roles, the various questions of probity, propriety and procedure that were aired in the O’Donnell report on the Werritty affair will be clearly brought to a known figure in the future, or will there be confusion?

Francis Maude: We will make sure that those issues are properly scrutinised, as they were on that occasion, and that there are proper arrangements to ensure that that is the case.

Topical Questions

Katy Clark: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities as Minister for the Cabinet Office are for the public sector efficiency and reform group, civil service issues, industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.

Katy Clark: The average pension for a woman retiring from the NHS is £3,000 and the average local government pension is £4,000. Does the Minister accept that if we
	increase the contributions for a worse pension, more people will simply opt out and we will end up paying more through the state benefits system?

Francis Maude: It is in no one’s interest that public sector workers should opt out of pension schemes. The numbers to which the hon. Lady refers do not in any way reflect the pension that people retire on after a full career. That is the average, including many people who serve relatively short times in the public service. At the end of these reforms public sector pensions will still be among the very best available, much better than those available to most people in the private sector, who have no chance of enjoying such pensions. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place. The House will want to hear Stephen Mosley.

Stephen Mosley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of negotiations with the trade unions on public sector pension reform?

Francis Maude: We have made progress and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I met the TUC again this morning. My right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House later. As I said, our intention is that public sector pensions will continue to be among the very best available, but fair both to public sector staff and to the general taxpayer, who has had to bear an increasing burden of the cost of paying for these pensions in recent years.

Michael Dugher: During last week’s debate on the Public Bodies Bill, the Government voted to scrap the role of the chief coroner, despite opposition from Opposition Members and from Back-Bench Conservative Members as well. Responding, the Royal British Legion said that it was
	“saddened that this opportunity to do the right thing by bereaved Service families was not taken”
	by the Government. As we approach Remembrance Sunday, is it not time that the Government did the right thing and listened to the Royal British Legion?

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman will have heard Ministers in the Ministry of Justice talking about this when we debated the matter last week, and I think they made a very good case for what the Government intend to do.

Henry Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say how the British Government compare with the French Government when it comes to the number of contracts they procure with domestic suppliers?

Francis Maude: The procurement practice that we inherited from the previous Government militates heavily against the interests of UK suppliers and UK jobs, especially when it comes to very large contracts. Both France and Germany, which do not operate protectionist regimes and which obey the rules, give away fewer jobs to other countries. We are looking at this to see how we can support UK suppliers in a way that the previous Government signally failed to do.

Bill Esterson: Speaking of fewer jobs, the Public Bodies Bill scrapped regional development agencies. My constituent, Mark Davenport, invested £6,000 setting up a business installing solar panels. At six weeks’ notice, the investment made by thousands of businesses was wiped out by a dramatic cut in the feed-in tariff scheme. Can the Minister explain to Mr Davenport how the abolition of the RDAs and now the cut in feed-in tariffs is helping jobs and growth?

Oliver Letwin: What the hon. Gentleman needs to deal with is the fact that the regional development agencies in their time never managed to achieve what they set out to achieve and acquired vast liabilities—an astonishing achievement for development agencies. The solar tariffs had to be reduced because they were a disgrace and would have cast ill-repute on the whole of the very important programme that we have for supporting renewables and feed-in tariffs in this country.

Jake Berry: People in Edgworth in my constituency found out that their bus service is being scrapped for want of £10,000, although the local authority can still find almost £100,000 to support trade union activity. What action will the Government take to end taxpayer-funded activity within the public sector?

Francis Maude: I have already said what we are planning to do in relation to the civil service. Obviously, local authorities must answer for their own affairs, but the guidance is that those arrangements should be reviewed regularly. I urge my hon. Friend to put pressure on his local authority to explain how it justifies spending money that should be spent on front-line public services supporting vulnerable people on subsidising trade union activity instead.

Stephen Timms: What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues who are responsible for the Work programme about openness and transparency? They are yet to publish any performance data on the programme. Moreover, they have banned Work programme providers from publishing their own performance data, as many of them would like to do.

Francis Maude: All the indications are that the Work programme is a successful move, and I will make those representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We are generally the most open Government ever. We lead the world in transparency and have gone much further than the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member ever dreamt of going.

Jason McCartney: Having heard the excellent news this week on the increase in apprenticeship places, which are up 50% to 442,000, does my hon. Friend agree that the national citizen service can also play a key role in helping our young people into work?

Nick Hurd: Yes, because it helps them to develop the skills that employers need.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Marcus Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 November.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Marcus Jones: With the average 60-year-old living 10 years longer than in the 1970s, public sector pension reform is essential. Will the Prime Minister ensure that reform is fair for my constituents, both in terms of taxpayers and public sector workers?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be making a full statement to the House. It seems to me to be absolutely vital that we do something that is fair to both taxpayers and public sector workers. The cost of our public sector pensions system is up by a third in the last decade. It is not fair to go on as we are, but the new arrangements must be fair to people who work hard in the public sector and on whom we all rely. I can tell the House that low and middle-income earners will actually get more from their public sector pensions, everyone will keep what they have built up so far, anyone within 10 years of retirement will see no change to their pension arrangements and, at the end of all this, people in the public sector will still get far better pensions than people in the private sector. I really think it is time that the Labour party was clear that it does not support strikes later this month.

Edward Miliband: Does the Prime Minister believe that growth of 0.5% over the last year and unemployment at a 17-year high point to the success or failure of his economic plan?

David Cameron: Obviously, everybody wants the British economy to grow faster—that is what everybody wants. Yesterday’s figure of 0.5% was better than many people expected and is it not noticeable that the right hon. Gentleman cannot even bring himself to welcome news like that? The key issue we all have to address is this: there is a global storm in the world economy today and it is in our interests to help others to confront that global storm, but we must also keep the British economy safe. We will not keep it safe if we add to our deficit, add to our debt and put interest rates at risk.

Edward Miliband: First the right hon. Gentleman blamed the Labour Government, then he blamed Europe, and yesterday he apparently blamed his Cabinet colleagues for the lack of growth in our economy. The truth about this Prime Minister is that when things go wrong it is never anything to do with him.
	Let me ask about another of his flagship policies, the business growth fund, which was launched nine months ago with the banks. Can he tell us the number of businesses the fund has invested in?

David Cameron: First, the problem with pre-scripted questions is that the right hon. Gentleman does not listen to the first answer. I did not actually in my first answer blame the last Labour Government, but if he would like me to do so I can start right now, because it was the last Labour Government who left us the record debts and the record deficit, and it is this Government who are having to deal with that.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks about the business growth fund. This is one of the schemes to ensure that banks are lending, alongside the Merlin scheme, which is actually seeing an increase in lending to small businesses. That is the record we can be proud of—and something he did not achieve.

Edward Miliband: We all know by now with this Prime Minister that when he blusters like that at the Dispatch Box he is either too embarrassed to answer or he does not know the answer, so let me help him. The business growth fund was announced nine months ago, it has five offices and 50 staff. How many investments? A grand total of two. It is becoming a pattern with this Prime Minister: fanfare announcement then radio silence. He said in March:
	“I’m going to watch those banks like a hawk and make sure they deliver”.
	So what is he going to do to get the business growth fund moving?

David Cameron: These are the banks the right hon. Gentleman completely failed to regulate year after year—[ Interruption. ] Yes, yes, and these—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House is getting—[ Interruption. ] Order. Mr Ronnie Campbell, calm yourself. The House is getting far too excited. It is only six minutes past—[ Interruption. ] Order. Let me say it at the outset: both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition must be heard. It is called democracy and free expression.

David Cameron: Let me just give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for what has happened under the bank lending schemes of this Government. We have £190 billion of new credit this year, up from £179 billion last year. That is a huge increase. There is £76 billion for small and medium-sized enterprises, up 15% on last year. We are seeing more bank lending under this Government, but we are seeing also the bank levy, so people in the banks are helping to pay to deal with the deficit that his Government created.

Edward Miliband: A totally hopeless answer. One of his own schemes, the business growth fund—they trumpeted the announcements, and they have not got a clue what is happening to their own scheme.
	Businesses are struggling, but one group in our economy is doing very well, indeed. Over the past year, when many people have seen their wages frozen, directors’ pay has risen by 49%. The Prime Minister expressed concern about that last Friday, but the public want to know: what is he going to do about it?

David Cameron: Let me tell you exactly what we are doing about it, and will do about it. It is this Government who introduced the bank levy—more raised in one year than the bonus tax that the previous Government created; it is this Government who have increased the fees that non-doms have to pay; it is this
	Government who have had an agreement with Switzerland and Liechtenstein to get hold of people who put money overseas; and it is this Government who have actually seen lower bank bonuses. But, where I agree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I think the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks, frankly, for the whole country when he says that it is unacceptable in a time of difficulty when people at the top of our society are not showing signs of responsibility. It is this Government who are consulting on proper measures to make sure we get transparency in terms of boardroom pay, proper accountability and more power for shareholders. All those things we are doing, and I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is so keen on this agenda, what did he do for the past 13 years?

Edward Miliband: I will tell you what we did, Mr Speaker. We introduced the 50p rate of income tax that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor want to abolish, but I am glad that we agree that something needs to be done about top pay. Now, last—[ Interruption. ] Conservative Members should just calm down. Follow the Prime Minister’s advice: just calm down. Last March, his fair pay review, which he set up, recommended that the Government require by January 2012—so January next year—that every top company publish how much the highest earners get paid compared with the average earner. That type of transparency is the least we should expect. Can he confirm that this will happen from January 2012? Yes or no?

David Cameron: What he will know is that unlike the previous Government, who did absolutely nothing, we are consulting on a whole series of steps to bring responsibility to the boardroom. I have to say that we are a little wary about accepting lectures from a party that told us it was intensely relaxed about everyone getting filthy rich—a party that had a capital gains tax system so that people in the City paid less tax than their cleaner. I know he has forgotten all these things but we remember them and we have done something about it.

Edward Miliband: Another report to Government; another failure to act. The truth is that the Prime Minister has sat on Will Hutton’s review for the past nine months and has done nothing about it. That is why the recommendation is not going to be implemented. That is the truth about this Prime Minister: he says we are all in it together but he lets the top 1% get away with it while the other 99% see their living standards squeezed and lose their jobs. That is why people are increasingly saying that this is a Prime Minister who is totally out of touch with their lives.

David Cameron: I have to say that in the week when the Labour party has hired a former tax exile to run their election campaign, the right hon. Gentleman has got a bit of nerve to come and lecture us on that. Labour had 13 years to regulate the banks but did nothing. It had 13 years to deal with bank bonuses but did nothing. Now it is in opposition, its message to business is, “Give us some money—you can run our election.”

Jason McCartney: Cable theft has cost the rail industry £43 million in the past three years and Gurkhas have even been drafted in to patrol the network. Meanwhile, homes and churches
	are being pilfered of their lead and copper and, in the past month, one churchyard in Huddersfield has had 169 memorial plaques stolen for their metal. Will the Prime Minister join me in saying that now is the time to legislate to stop those stolen metals going to merchants?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The theft of metal, particularly from war memorials, is an absolutely sickening and disgusting crime. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan to deal with this, which will involve looking again at the whole regulation of scrap metal dealers. We are determined to do that to put a stop to this appalling crime.

Nigel Dodds: People in my constituency and right across the country are desperately worried about the increasing cost of gas, electricity and home heating oil and about how they are going to keep their home warm this winter. What more can the Prime Minister tell the country he is going to do to help people in that situation? In particular, will he reverse the cuts to winter fuel allowance that hit senior citizens? Surely, it is not good enough simply to say that he is following the Opposition’s plans—he has done so many things differently from the Opposition, so why does he not do something different on the winter fuel allowance?

David Cameron: On the winter fuel allowance we have kept the plans that were set out by the previous Government and I think that is the right thing to do. On the cold weather payments, we have taken the increase that was meant for one year and maintained it, so if there is a particularly cold winter, people will be getting that help. The other step we are taking is making sure that energy companies give people proper information about the lowest tariffs they can get and that we have proper reform of the energy market—something that the Labour party has now suddenly started to talk about but did absolutely nothing about in government.

Alun Cairns: Public sector pension reform should be achieved through negotiation and compromise. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is wholly irresponsible and downright destructive for senior politicians of any political party to support strike action while negotiations are ongoing?

David Cameron: I think my hon. Friend is entirely right. It is a very fair offer to hard-working public servants to say, “This is a strong set of pension reforms that will give you pensions that are still better than anything available in the private sector.” Frankly, to have a Labour Front-Bench team who are silent on this issue, with their education spokesman actually encouraging teachers to strike, is the height of irresponsibility.

Susan Elan Jones: My constituents Alan and Linda Eastwood have a son who has been serving in our nation’s armed forces in Afghanistan. In common with the Royal British Legion, Mr and Mrs Eastwood regard the Prime Minister’s decision to abolish the post of chief coroner
	as a betrayal. Will the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks he is right on this issue and the Royal British Legion is wrong?

David Cameron: This is a very important issue, and I have had discussions with the Royal British Legion about it, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. The point about it is that the current proposal for the office of chief coroner to be established would involve something like £10 million of spending, and we think the money would be better spent on improving all coroners’ services across the country. We are listening very carefully to the concerns expressed in both Houses of Parliament about this issue, but what really matters is: are we going to improve the performance of our coroners? That is what service families want; that is what I want; and that is what we will deliver.

David Evennett: Public sector workers in my constituency work extremely hard to deliver essential public services, and I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that we value those services tremendously. Will he reassure those workers and confirm that the Government’s reforms—very necessary reforms that they are—will ensure that those services are sustainable and remain among the very best?

David Cameron: I will certainly do that. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The cost of supporting public sector pensions has gone up by one third in the last decade, and we are now spending something like £32 billion. They are a major item of public spending, and obviously we are taking taxes off people, including those in the private sector who have less good pensions, to pay for that pension provision.
	I believe that our scheme is fair. For example, a teacher retiring on a salary of £37,000 after a full career would retire on a pension of £25,000 in future. That is more than the £19,000 that they would currently get. This is a fair set of changes. The less well-off are really protected, and the low paid in the public sector will not have to pay the increased contributions. Frankly, I think the whole House of Commons should get behind them instead of playing with strike action like the Labour party.

Alistair Darling: When the Prime Minister goes to the G20 meeting over the next couple of days, will he try to persuade his colleagues of the urgency of coming up with some detail on the eurozone settlement reached last week? It is not at all clear how on earth Greece will get out of its difficulties, even if the referendum passes. European banks will need shoring up well before next summer, and as for the new rescue fund, which may be needed sooner than we think, it does not actually exist. Will he accept that the G20 now needs to show the same urgency and sense of purpose that it showed two years ago when it met in London? Otherwise, far from getting ahead of events, Governments will be condemned to being dragged along in their wake.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he says about the urgency of the G20 meeting, and the necessity of its agenda. I think some progress was made at the European Council meeting a week ago when, for the first time, it accepted
	a proper write-down of Greek debt, which must be part of the solution, and a proper recapitalisation of Europe’s banks done to a credible test, rather than the incredible test we have had in months gone by.
	The final element that the right hon. Gentleman rightly refers to—and which needs to have more detail and substance added—is to make sure there is a proper firewall to stop contagion in the eurozone. The need has become even greater. Frankly, of course we cannot involve ourselves in Greek domestic politics, but it has become even more urgent to put meat on the bones of these plans to show that we are removing one of the key obstacles to global growth, which is the failure to agree a proper plan to deal with problems in the eurozone.

Philip Hollobone: According to the Government’s own projections, Britain’s population is set to increase from 62 million today to 70 million by 2027, with two thirds of that increase being driven by immigration. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to stem that increase by breaking the almost automatic link between foreign nationals who come to work here subsequently being granted citizenship?

David Cameron: We are committed to doing exactly that, and my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. I think that proper immigration control and welfare reform are two sides of the same coin, and this Government are committed to controlling immigration properly, but also to putting British people back to work. The two work together.
	Today, we have announced that, in terms of the illegal immigration that comes through the student route, more than 450 colleges will no longer be able to sponsor new international students, because they were not properly established to do that. Those colleges could have brought in more than 11,000 students to the UK to study each year. That is just one example of how this Government are living up to their promise to get a grip of immigration.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Prime Minister agree with the vast majority of people that smoking should be banned in vehicles when children are present, and will he encourage the Government to adopt the contents of my ten-minute rule Bill, which aims to put an end to it?

David Cameron: I do think the smoking ban is right. I have to admit, as a former smoker, and someone who believes strongly in liberties and who did not support it at the time, that the smoking ban has worked, and I think it is successful. I am much more nervous about going into what people do inside a vehicle. I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have to have a serious think before we take that step.

Michael Crockart: The Prime Minister will be aware of Citigroup’s report, issued yesterday, on green energy investment in Scotland. Does he agree that this report very ably demonstrates that the benefits of green energy in the UK are unlocked only by combining Scotland’s renewable potential with the large-scale investment made possible by the UK; and does he agree that a drawn-out independence referendum is a serious distraction from that?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In fact, a major financial institution warned yesterday of the dangers of investing in Scotland while there is this uncertainty about the future of the constitution under way. I think it is very important that we keep our United Kingdom together and we stress that when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland—but we will do that only if we keep our country together.

Alan Whitehead: Just after the election, the Prime Minister said that his Government would be the greenest ever. Does he still take that statement seriously? If he does, will he personally intervene to sort out the appalling chaos that is resulting from the slashing, in six weeks’ time, of feed-in tariffs for solar PV, leading to substantial job losses, chaos in the solar PV industry, and devastation for hundreds of community renewables projects?

David Cameron: It is this Government who set aside £3 billion for a green investment bank, much talked about in the past but never done. It is this Government who have put in place a carbon price floor—one of the first Governments anywhere in the world to do so. It is us who put aside £1 billion for carbon capture and storage. So this is a very green Government living up to our promises—absolutely right.

Jonathan Evans: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the pupils and staff at Whitchurch high school, a foundation-status comprehensive school in my constituency? It is the former school of Sam Warburton, the outstanding Welsh rugby captain; Gareth Bale, the impressive footballer at Spurs and Wales; and Geraint Thomas, the gold medallist. It will be receiving the award for state school of the year for sports—

Mr Speaker: Order. We get the drift of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

David Cameron: I have to say that that is a very impressive list of sports personalities who have attended this school; I do not know what they put in the water, but I think we would probably all like to have some. I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating such an excellent school.

Katy Clark: In the past four years, six children and two adults have been killed in dog attacks, and some 6,000 postal workers are attacked each year. There is cross-party agreement that we need to tighten up the law in this area. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest and make sure that legislation is brought forward as soon as possible?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point. Legislative attempts at this in the past have not always been successful and have not always captured the breeds that need to be captured, so I will certainly take a personal interest, and perhaps I can write to the hon. Lady and set out what the Government intend to do.

Simon Hughes: Following the Prime Minister’s answers a moment ago, and given the huge anger about the pay for the top 100 directors, can he give me a personal assurance that he is committed to the transfer of power over pay from the boardroom to the shareholders of our companies?

David Cameron: I do want to see that happen. The answer to this is much more transparency about the levels of pay, much more accountability, and strengthening the hand of shareholders. There is something else we need to do, which is to make sure that non-executive directors on boards are not the usual sort of rotating list of men patting each other’s backs and increasing the level of remuneration. I want to see more women in Britain’s boardrooms, which I think would have a thoroughly good influence.

David Lammy: The—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. I want to hear Mr David Lammy.

David Lammy: The Prime Minister has described his Work programme as the biggest back-to-work programme since the 1930s, but he knows that it does not create jobs—it merely links people to vacancies. In Tottenham, there are 6,500 people unemployed, 28,000 people on out-of-work benefits, and only 150 vacancies. What is his Work programme going to do about that?

David Cameron: As the right hon. Gentleman says, the Work programme plays a key role in helping to prepare people for work. That is absolutely vital. It also brings employers in, so that they can offer jobs to those people. I have looked specifically at the issue of Tottenham, because I know from when I visited his constituency with him that, yes of course, there is a shortage of vacancies in the borough of Tottenham itself, but we have to encourage people who live in London to be prepared to travel more widely to look for work. That is absolutely vital, and part of the Work programme should be aimed at addressing exactly that.

Graham Stuart: Rural fire services attend more primary fires and more road traffic accidents than do those in urban areas, yet they receive less funding. This is typical of rural services across the piece, with residents paying more and receiving less. Will the Prime Minister meet me and a group of other MPs from across the House who represent rural areas, to discuss getting a fairer deal for those in rural areas, particularly the rural poor?

David Cameron: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. It is important that we have a fair deal for rural areas. There are obviously very big differences, particularly in the use of retained firefighters, but I am happy to meet him to discuss the issue.

Gregg McClymont: The Prime Minister knows, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, that in nine months, the Government’s business growth fund has invested in precisely two companies. At a time when the economy is flatlining, is that good enough?

David Cameron: What this Government have done is cut corporation tax for every business in the country. We have introduced enterprise zones to help employment, and increased the number of apprenticeships by 250,000 over the life of this Parliament. The Opposition criticise the regional growth fund, but there was no regional growth fund under Labour. That is the point. Let me just remind them that we inherited an economy with the biggest budget deficit in Europe, and it is this Government who are helping our economy through the international storms to ensure that we remain safe in the UK.

Jessica Lee: This week is national adoption week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must continue to do all that we can to support children in the care system, and to encourage prospective adoptive parents to come forward?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. In national adoption week, we really need more parents to come forward as potential adopters and potential foster carers, because there is a huge build-up of children in the care system who will not get that help unless people come forward. It is also important that the Government pledge that we will make the process of adoption and fostering simpler. It has become too bureaucratic and difficult, and the result is that it is putting people off. I am absolutely determined that we crack this. It is a matter of national shame that, while there are 3,660 children under the age of one in the care system, there were only 60 adoptions last year. We are now publishing information on every single council, so that people can see how we are doing in terms of driving this vital agenda.

Thomas Docherty: This week, yet another military academic has called for the reopening of the defence review, and a leading military think-tank has said:
	“Britain is now cutting military equipment that might prove vital in future.”
	Will the Prime Minister finally listen to the voices of the defence community and reopen his deeply flawed defence review?

David Cameron: We had no defence review for 10 years, and now the Opposition want two in one go. That is absolutely typical of the opportunism of the Labour party. This is a day, as hostilities in Libya are coming to an end, on which we should be praising our armed services and all that they have done.

Guy Opperman: Schools in rural Northumberland were largely ignored by the previous Government. With the schools budget rising from £35 billion to £39 billion in 2015, will the Prime Minister welcome the finance bid put forward by Prudhoe community high school in my constituency?

David Cameron: I will certainly welcome that bid. It is important to note that, because we are protecting the per-pupil funding, even at a difficult time for the economy and public spending, the education budget will be rising and not falling—[ Interruption. ] As ever, the shadow Chancellor is wrong, even when he is sitting down. He talks even more rubbish when he stands up. I
	digress. As well as the extra investment in the schools budget, there is also the opportunity for free schools, which I think are going to be a major reform in our country, to bring in more good school places. Perhaps when a future shadow Chancellor attends one of those schools, he will learn a few manners.
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: Order. Some people are going to burst they are getting so excited, which is a bit of a shame—and a bit problem for them.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Prime Minister listen to both the campaigners outside Parliament today and the 80,000 people who have written to him in recent weeks, and commit to becoming a leading advocate for the introduction of a Robin Hood tax at the G20 summit later this week? Will he ensure that the revenue is earmarked to tackle sustainable development and the growing climate crisis?

David Cameron: As the hon. Lady knows, there is widespread support for the principles behind such a tax, but it must be adopted on a global basis. Let me say this as quite an important warning to those who are pushing so hard for such a tax: we must be careful that we do not allow other countries, including some European countries, to use a campaign for the tax, which they know is unlikely to be adopted in the short term, as an excuse for getting out of their aid commitments. The House and the country can be proud of the fact that we are meeting our aid commitments. Do not let others use the tax as a way getting out of things that they promised.

Tim Farron: The world population passed 7 billion this week. That is an awful lot of mouths to feed. In addition, the UN predicts that over the next 40 years, world demand for food will increase by 70%. That ought to be good news for farmers, but sadly, since 1990, Britain’s capacity to feed itself has fallen by a fifth. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is a disastrous situation, and will he urgently introduce a credible strategy to grow Britain’s farming industry to feed us all in future?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that we have seen our food security decline and our food production severely challenged over the past 10 years. It is important to remember that farmers are businesses. They need things done like other businesses do on deregulation, predictable income and all those things. This Government are committed to making that happen, which will benefit particularly people in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Clive Betts: On 13 September 2010 at the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, when asked whether success for this Government will mean building more homes per year than were being built prior to the recession, the Minister for Housing and Local Government replied:
	“Yes. Building more homes is the gold standard upon which we shall be judged.”
	In which year or years of this Parliament does the Prime Minister expect that gold standard to be achieved?

David Cameron: What we have said is that we are going to expand the building of homes for social rent by increasing and reintroducing the right to buy, which the previous Government so scandalously ran down. That will help. We will also make available Government land, so that builders can get on and build without having to buy that land. They will have to pay only when they have actually delivered the house. We want to see an extra 200,000 homes built in that way, which will give us a far better record than that of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman represented.

Peter Tapsell: Notwithstanding the increasingly maniacal gesticulations of the shadow Chancellor, is it not remarkable that in the middle of the world’s biggest crisis, Britain is able to borrow at lower rates of interest than almost any other country in the world?

David Cameron: As ever, it takes the Father of the House to bring the wisdom to the table, which is that if
	we did not have a proper plan for getting on top of our debts and our deficit, we would not have 2.5% interest rates, which are the greatest stimulus our economy could have. Instead, we would have interest rates like those of the Greeks, the Spanish and the Italians, and our economy would be hit. Do you know how you get interest rates like that? You get them if you adopt the plans of the Labour party. Its plan is for an extra £87 billion of borrowing over this Parliament. You do not solve a debt crisis by adding to your debts—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The shadow Chancellor can go on making his rather questionable salutes, but it is time for him to take a primer.

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber, who unaccountably do not wish to remain for the statement, to do so quickly and quietly, so that the rest of us can listen attentively to the Chief Secretary.

Public Service Pensions

Danny Alexander: I wish to update the House on progress in the reform of public service pensions and to set out the new offer that we have made as we seek to bring this issue to a conclusion by the end of the year. Our objective is to put in place new schemes that are affordable and fair for taxpayers and public service workers, and that can be sustained for decades to come. That is not easy, but it is the right thing to do and I recognise that this is a contentious area.
	Public service workers deserve a good pension in retirement as a fair reward for a lifetime spent serving the public. That is why in June last year, the Chancellor commissioned Lord Hutton, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the previous Government, to take an impartial, dispassionate look at this issue and to bring forward proposals for reform. His landmark report has set the terms of the debate and I am sure that the whole House will share my gratitude for his work.
	Lord Hutton’s interim report found that there was a clear justification, based on the past cost increases borne by the taxpayer, for an increase in member contributions. We accepted that recommendation, and increases in member contributions will take place starting next year, although next year’s increase merely reflects the increase already planned by the previous Government. In his final report, he set out a blueprint for a new landscape of public service pensions based on retaining defined benefit schemes, but moving to a fairer career average basis, and increasing the retirement age in line with the state pension age to protect the taxpayer against future increases in life expectancy.
	We accepted Lord Hutton’s recommendations in full as a basis for consultation and we have been discussing the recommendations with the trade unions. Those discussions started in February and are still going on. Despite some of the public comment, significant progress has been made. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the general secretary of the TUC for their tireless work to reach common ground on reform.
	The trade unions have welcomed many of the commitments that we made at the start of this process, including that public sector schemes will remain as defined benefit schemes, with a guaranteed amount provided in retirement, and that all accrued rights will be protected. Everything that public servants have earned until the point of change, they will keep, and those things will be paid out in the terms expected and at the retirement age expected. Final salary means just that: a person’s accrued rights will be based on their final salary not at the point of change, but when their career ends or they choose to leave the scheme. No public sector worker needs to have anything to fear for the entitlements that they have already built up.
	We have also reached agreement on the importance of transparency, equality impacts, participation rates and opt-outs, scheme governance, and high level principles to inform consultations on scheme-level pensions. However, the central issue of the value of new schemes remains to be agreed. I believe that two aims need to be met. First, for most low and middle income workers, the new schemes should generate an income at retirement that is
	at least as good as the amount that they receive now. Secondly, the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the risks associated with further increases in life expectancy, by linking the scheme normal pension age to state pension age.
	In early October, we set cost ceilings to meet those tests. Those cost ceilings are based on Lord Hutton’s recommendations and generate an accrual rate of 1/65th for the new schemes. Scheme-by-scheme discussions have been taking place on that basis since the beginning of October. Although the talks have been productive, trade unions and Ministers have given consistent feedback about what they think needs to change. Last week, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I met the TUC negotiating team, who pressed for a more generous cost ceiling and explicit protections for those workers nearest to retirement. I have received similar feedback from the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Health.
	Having listened to those views, I have decided to revise the Government’s offer. Cabinet discussed these matters yesterday, and I met the TUC this morning to set out the terms of our new offer. The offer increases the cost ceiling and provides for generous transitional arrangements for those closest to retirement. I have made available to Members today a document that sets out the detail. This generous offer should be more than sufficient to allow agreement to be reached with the unions, but it is conditional upon agreement being reached. I hope that on the basis of this offer, the trade unions will devote their energy to reaching agreement and not to unnecessary and damaging strike action. In that way, the offer can inform the scheme-by-scheme talks that will continue until the end of the year. Of course, if agreement cannot be reached, we may need to revisit our proposals and consider whether the enhancements remain appropriate.
	I can announce today that I have decided to offer an increase to the cost ceiling. Future schemes will now be based on a pension to the value of l/60th of average salary, accruing for each year worked. That is an 8% increase on the previous offer. I will give the House some examples of what that means. A teacher with a lifetime in public service and a salary at retirement of £37,800 would receive £25,200 each year under these proposals, rather than the £19,100 that they would currently earn in the final salary teachers’ pension scheme. A nurse with a lifetime in public service and a salary at retirement of £34,200 would receive £22,800 of pension each year if these reforms were introduced, whereas under the current 1995 NHS pension scheme arrangements they would only get £17,300.
	Pensions would remain considerably better than those available in the private sector. To earn the equivalent pension in the private sector, the teacher retiring on £37,000 would need a pension pot of around £675,000, and the nurse retiring on £34,200, a pot of £600,000. Both would require an annual contribution of around a third of salary.
	In addition, I have listened to the argument that those closest to retirement should not have to face any change at all. That is the approach that has been taken over the years in relation to increases to the state pension age, and I think it is fair to apply that here too. I can also announce that scheme negotiations will be given the flexibility, outside the cost ceiling, to deliver
	protection so that no one within 10 years of retirement will see any change in when they can retire or any decrease in the amount of pension they receive. Anyone 10 years or less from retirement age on 1 April 2012 can be assured that there will be no detriment to their retirement income.
	We need to be clear about the backdrop against which this offer is made. I fully understand that families across the country are feeling financial pressure right now. These are unprecedented and tough economic times. But reform is essential because the costs of public service pensions have risen dramatically over the last few decades. The bottom line is that we are all living longer. The average 60-year-old today is living 10 years longer now than they did in the 1970s. That is a remarkable and welcome achievement, but it also means that people are living in retirement longer and claiming their pension for longer. As a result, the costs of public service pensions have risen to £32 billion a year, an increase of a third in the last 10 years. While they accounted for just under 1% of GDP in 1970, they account for around 2% of GDP today—more than we spend in total on police, prisons and the courts. And for the most part, it has not been the public service workers footing the bill, but the general taxpayer. We have to reform to ensure that the costs of pensions are sustainable in the long term and to ensure that costs and risks are fairly shared between employees and employers.
	I believe this package is affordable. I believe it is also fair to public service workers, and delivers significant long-term savings to taxpayers who will continue to make a significant contribution to these pensions. If reform along these lines is agreed, I believe that we will have a deal that can endure for at least 25 years and hopefully longer. People are living longer, so public service pension reform is inevitable. But we have listened to the concerns of public sector workers and come up with a deal that is fair and affordable. The lowest paid and people 10 years from retirement will be protected, and public service pensions will still be among the very best available.
	If reform of this sort is agreed, then no party in this House will need to seek further reform of the overall package. This sustainability is an important prize. So I hope that the trade unions will now grasp the opportunity that this new offer represents. I also hope that the Labour party will do the right thing, put party politics aside, and support the proposals, which—after all—came from John Hutton, in the interests of securing a long term consensus on the future of public service pensions. It is the chance of a lifetime to secure good, high quality, and fair public service pensions.
	Yes, we are asking public service workers to contribute more. Yes, we are asking them to work longer, along with the rest of society, but we are offering the chance of a significantly better pension at the end of it for many low and middle income earners. It will be a fairer pension, so that low income workers stop subsidising pensions for the highest earners. It will be a sustainable deal that will endure for at least 25 years, and an affordable deal that will ensure that taxpayers are asked to make a sensible contribution, but will keep costs sustainable and under proper control. That is the new offer I am putting on the table today, it is an offer that the Opposition should support and the unions should agree to and I commend this statement to the House.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and for advance notice of it. I welcome today’s signal that the Government are now willing to enter into proper discussions. That is a welcome change from the months of Treasury and Cabinet Office intransigence that came before.
	Too often in recent months it has appeared that the Government have not understood that strikes are a sign of failure on both sides. Let us be clear: it was this Government’s decision to rip up the framework established by the last Labour Government and to go much further much faster. In particular, it was the Chancellor’s decision to pre-empt Lord Hutton and impose a 3% surcharge for all employees announced in the spending review last year, before negotiations had even begun. That decision suggested that rather than negotiating in good faith, the Government were intent on acting unilaterally and so provoking confrontation. It is good news, therefore, that the Government have at last made a constructive move to begin proper discussions.
	Let me be clear: no one wants strike action. The Government and the unions have a duty to show that they have exhausted every possible avenue. Our focus is on those who rely on services that would be affected by strikes—from parents who will have to take a day off work to those who rely on home help. However, public sector workers—nurses, teachers and dinner ladies—also care too much about the people they serve day in, day out to consider action as anything other than a last resort, yet those who work in front-line public services are also desperately worried about their future and about whether they will be able to afford retirement. It is for the Government to ensure, therefore, that change is agreed and delivered in a way that brings with them the nurses, teachers, home helps and dinner ladies affected by the changes.
	It is welcome that the Government have now recognised that announcing tactical offers on the airwaves, rather than constructive proposals in proper negotiations, is not the right way to proceed. However, I would suggest three key tests for a fair agreement. First, on affordability, do the changes deliver a fair deal for taxpayers when times are tough, taxes are rising and spending is being cut? Secondly, on fairness, do they deliver a fair deal for public sector workers on low and middle incomes, whose pensions are far from gold-plated and who have given so much to the services in which they work? Thirdly, on sustainability, do the changes deliver a workable settlement for the long term that does not undermine the sustainability of existing schemes and which can be flexible in the face of rising life expectancy? That is how we will judge the outcome of the negotiations.
	To meet those tests, it has always been clear that public sector workers will need to accept higher contributions on average and, given that people are living longer, an increase in the retirement age, too. That was fundamental to the arrangements put in place by the previous Government for capping the Government’s contributions and then, as costs rose, negotiating how to increase workers’ contributions or change entitlements. Equally, however, the Government have to accept that for many low-paid staff, their pension is the only means of security in retirement. In a time of pay freezes, sharp increases in contributions risk hardship today and increased levels of opt-out, pushing up pensioner poverty in the
	future, which is why we have been critical of the confrontational stance taken by the Government and of the rush to early industrial action in June.
	We will see in the coming days whether these moves are sufficient to restore the much-needed trust in these discussions that could ensure that, even at this late stage, there is still time for both sides to step back from the brink. We must all study the detail of what is now on the table, but on affordability, will the Chief Secretary set out the cost of these concessions to the public purse? As he rightly sets out the transitional protections for workers in their 50s and tapering arrangements for those in their late-40s, can he say whether both these additional costs will have to be made by savings elsewhere in the system? On fairness, can he confirm that the proposed increase in contributions, if applied across the board, would still mean an increase in contributions for low-paid and part-time workers earning less than £15,000 a year? Have the Government assessed the impact of the pay freeze on opt-out rates from public sector pension schemes to date?
	On sustainability, has an assessment been made of the impact of the 3% increase in contributions proposed from April and of whether increased drop-out rates could affect the viability of funded schemes, such as the local government scheme? Is it the Chief Secretary’s intention that those affected as a result of the settlement will have the certainty of knowing that there will be no further changes for 25 years? How will he deliver on that commitment? Will he give the House a timetable for discussions over the next eight weeks, given his aim to secure agreement by the end of the year? I hope that he can reassure taxpayers and public sector workers—teachers, the police, home helps and others—on those points. The Government must leave no stone unturned in their negotiations to seek a genuinely sustainable agreement that is fair for public sector workers and taxpayers, and avoids a strike this autumn.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response, although she left a few questions unanswered herself, which I shall come to.
	On proper discussions, I reject what she said about the Government’s stance. Talks have been going on constructively for the last eight months. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and I have spent many, many hours in those discussions, and if the hon. Lady talked to the trade unions, she would discover that they, too, see them as constructive. She also referred to the previous Government’s cap and share arrangement. Let me tell her what Lord Hutton said about it in his report:
	“Cap and share cannot take account of the increases in cost of pensions over recent decades because people have been living longer. Also, untested, complex cap and share arrangements cannot of themselves, address the underlying issue of structural reforms, nor significantly reduce current costs to taxpayers.”
	In other words, the previous Government’s arrangements were simply not good enough at controlling the costs in the way we need to.
	The hon. Lady asked me several questions; let me address them directly. As I said in my statement, transitional protections and tapering are outside the cost ceiling, so they will not be met at the expense of other arrangements, which may be negotiated on a scheme-by-scheme basis. On contributions, there was an assumption, audited by
	the Office for Budget Responsibility, about the impact that 1% of pay-bill would have on opt-out rates, which I accept. We are engaged in a separate track of negotiations with the local government pension scheme—which the hon. Lady also mentioned—precisely in recognition of the fact that it is a funded scheme and that therefore different considerations apply.
	On affordability—the first of the hon. Lady’s three tests—let me tell her that, yes, the changes are affordable. Her test is met. This test ensures—[ Interruption. ] Opposition Front Benchers are saying, “Part-time workers?” The contributions increase has been set out. We have ensured, on a scheme-by-scheme basis, that the contributions will be tiered according to income. Those earning less than £15,000 a year on a full-time equivalent basis will have zero—[ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) likes to hector from a sedentary position. Instead of being the shadow chunterer, perhaps he will sit there and listen. We have made it clear that those earning up to £21,000 on a full-time equivalent basis will have a reduction. The full-time equivalent basis for pension reform is the basis—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. There was quite a lot of chuntering earlier when the shadow Chief Secretary was speaking, and that should not happen. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have had their go, and I am afraid that they cannot pursue the debate again from a sedentary position. Let us hear the Chief Secretary. The House knows that I will allow plenty of time for questions, so we need not get aerated about it.

Danny Alexander: The full-time equivalent basis for pension reform is being approached in exactly the same way that the previous Government treated it. The hon. Lady’s tests for affordability, fairness and a workable settlement are all met. She did not say, in the end, whether she supported the deal on the table to date. It is incumbent on the Opposition to understand the deal and support it. It is also incumbent on them to make clear their position on strike action. I hope that she agrees with me that, in light of the new offer and the constructive approach taken to the negotiations, she should not support trade unions going ahead with strike action later this month.

Harriett Baldwin: I welcome the extensive work that has gone into these proposals and would like to ask a question specific to my constituency and many others. Many teachers in my constituency work in the state sector, but over their careers they will often spend periods in the independent sector too. Will the proposals continue to allow inter-changeability between the two sectors?

Danny Alexander: If agreement is reached, they will. The arrangements that the hon. Lady describes are an important part of the discussions, but they depend on reaching a sustainable agreement on the future of public service pensions along the lines I have set out.

Anne Begg: I look forward to studying the proposals, because with pensions the devil is always in the detail. I have spoken to public sector workers, and the two things that they are most concerned about—and which might have encouraged them to vote for strike action at the end of November—are the large increase in individual contributions, on top of
	what they already contribute, and the move from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. I did not hear from the Chief Secretary’s statement whether those two things remain in place, which would be a disappointment to public sector workers.

Danny Alexander: Those two things do remain in place. I understood from a previous debate that the Opposition supported the switch from RPI to CPI. We are going ahead with the increase in member contributions, which, as Lord Hutton said in his interim report, is necessary to rebalance the substantial increase in costs over the past few decades, which have been borne almost entirely by the taxpayer. Around the table with the trade union negotiators, the main issues raised in recent weeks have been the accrual rate, the transitional arrangements and the guarantee that we are reaching a long-term settlement.

Phillip Lee: I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement. On many occasions in Bracknell and Finchampstead, I have met people in their 30s and 40s employed in the private sector—the majority of people in my constituency are employed in the private sector. Can he confirm that many in the public sector would have to contribute a third of their salary and pension contributions in order to get similar pensions in the private sector?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I can confirm that that would be the case. In some cases the figure would be more, depending on how the scheme-by-scheme talks that will go forward resolve the issue. In order to acquire a pension of the sort that we are rightly talking about for public sector workers, people in the private sector would need to acquire a pension pot of £500,000 or more, which would require a substantial salary contribution, of the order of a third.

Helen Goodman: The Chief Secretary made much of preserving accrued rights. However, to return to the CPI and RPI, what will the average loss be to public sector workers of making the switch permanent?

Danny Alexander: I think the hon. Lady may have been trying to welcome the protection of accrued rights, in which case I am grateful for her comments. She is right that the switch from RPI is a change to public service pensions that will reduce the benefits over the long term, although that will depend on the scheme and the individual involved. However, it is the right thing to do, because we are talking about the measure of inflation used by the Bank of England to set rates. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question will depend on the individual scheme and the individual person.

Stephen Williams: Both the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which my right hon. Friend authored, and the coalition agreement committed the Government to an independent review of pensions, and one cannot get more independent than the former Labour Secretary of State, Lord Hutton. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what he has set out today is more generous to future pensioners and current employees than Lord Hutton recommended, while maintaining fairness for the taxpayer?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to celebrate Lord Hutton’s independence in this matter. It is a measure of the Opposition’s lack of interest in the subject that they have not even asked for the statement to be repeated in the House of Lords, so that Members there can hear directly from Lord Hutton. He did not recommend a level of adequacy, but he did say that the floor threshold should be the adequacy rates set out by Adair Turner. The offer that I am announcing today is 40% more generous than those floor adequacy rates.

John McDonnell: Is it not true that the vast majority of public servants will still be paying more and working longer, and that a significant number will still lose out? The protections for the lower-paid will not affect trained firefighters, trained teachers or trained doctors, or many other public servants. The accrued rights that the right hon. Gentleman has offered are actually a legal duty, and he will exacerbate the industrial relations climate by making an offer, but at the same time threatening to take it off the table.

Danny Alexander: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a long interest in these matters, but he is wrong in his characterisation. He is of course right that we are asking public sector workers to work longer, to set the normal pension age in line with the state pension age, but frankly that is happening to every single person in this country. Public sector workers cannot be immune from that trend any more than anyone else. He mentioned firefighters. Let me say that good discussions are taking place on the firefighters’ pension scheme. We have delayed setting a cost ceiling to take account of all the factors in the firefighters’ pension scheme, particularly the double accrual.

Heather Wheeler: May I welcome today’s statement and pass on the comments made to me by teachers in South Derbyshire in both the private sector and the public sector? It is important that accrued rights remain and that it is easy to move between the two areas, because the private sector is very strong indeed in Derbyshire.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for those comments. It is important that teachers, health workers and civil servants study for themselves what the Government are offering. There has been a great deal of misinformation around this debate. We are setting out a document today that describes the position in detail. A new website, too, will be available for public sector workers to see precisely what it might mean for them. I hope those people will seek to form their own opinion of what the Government are offering.

John Cryer: Will the Chief Secretary clarify one comment he made in his statement, when he said that the offer is conditional upon reaching agreement? Does that imply that any industrial action taken anywhere by any trade union member will mean the offer being withdrawn?

Danny Alexander: No, this is not conditional on industrial action. Some unions are saying that they are planning strikes on 30 November. Talks on a scheme-by-scheme basis will still be going on at that time. I hope that those unions will feel that, on the basis of this offer,
	they no longer need to go ahead with that action. I think that would be a constructive response to what I have set out today. The offer is conditional upon an agreement being reached—an agreement by the end of the year on the heads of terms on a scheme-by-scheme basis. It is appropriate that we set out a good offer; as a Government, we want to reach agreement, but at the end of the day the trade unions need to want that, too.

Bernard Jenkin: May I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the tone in which he has delivered it—and, indeed, commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General? Will the Chief Secretary welcome the notes of conciliation in the response by Her Majesty’s official Opposition? Although our politics does not lend itself to consensus, is this not a subject on which we wish to reach a broad consensus both for the well-being of public sector pensions and for the country and economy as a whole?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. It is precisely the sort of subject on which there should be a cross-party consensus. I think a consensus could be formed around the proposals we have made today. The shadow Chief Secretary says that she wishes to study our proposals. That is fair enough, but I hope that she will see on reflection that the proposals we are putting forward are the right way to go forward on public service pensions both for public sector workers, who are fully entitled to a proper and decent pension, and for the taxpayer as a whole.

Geraint Davies: Does the Minister agree that the statement consisted of sacrificing long-term pension rights to pay for a short-term failure to stimulate economic growth? What we are seeing, after 13 years of industrial peace, is the return of mass strike action due to Tory economic failure and a threatening, macho approach to negotiation. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It would be more seemly if the hon. Gentleman were not standing with his hand in his pocket, but I must say to the Education Secretary that he really should not keep on expostulating noisily from a sedentary position. If he were to do that in one of the nation’s classrooms, he would be in detention by now.

Danny Alexander: The Education Secretary’s noisy expostulations have been thoroughly in support of what the Government are doing; as such, I welcome them. I think that the tone struck by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) is entirely out of keeping with the tone of the debate so far. For all the reasons I have given, reform of public sector pensions is necessary. It is important that we get it right and that we do so by agreement if we can. That is this Government’s objective.

Anne Main: I share the disappointment at the rather lukewarm response on the Labour Benches. May I ask my right hon. Friend to stress to the unions that this is not the opening salvo in further negotiations, so they really should take this as a realistic opportunity to come up with a long-term solution for the 25-year period that would be best for the taxpayer?
	I sincerely hope that the unions take that in the spirit in which it is intended so that we do not have industrial action over the winter.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. I sensed from our earlier discussions that the trade unions recognised that this was a constructive step by the Government. It is the best offer that is going to be on the table; I think it is important that it is understood in that sense.

Tony Lloyd: Neither the Chancellor yesterday nor the Chief Secretary today answered the question about part-time workers—specifically about those earning less than £15,000 whose wages would be above that if they were working full time. Will the Minister tell us clearly whether those people will end up paying the 3% contribution? If so, he must understand why there cannot be an easy consensus on the issue.

Danny Alexander: As I said in answer to the shadow Chief Secretary, the proposals are on a full-time equivalent basis, which is exactly the way pension reform was carried out under the previous Government. Of course, the matter was open for discussion in the consultations about the first year’s contribution increases. We look forward to hearing the results of those consultations.

George Freeman: I welcome the statement and congratulate the Front-Bench team on the work they have done to go as far as they can to help the low-paid. Is it not the truth that we are facing a crisis of spiralling costs from an irresponsible boom in the public sector under the last Government—with unfunded pension liabilities, bankrupt public finances and debt interest set to rise to £76 billion? Is it not the truth that it is always the poorest that pick up the bills for Labour and that a responsible—

Mr Speaker: Order. The trouble with Members crafting their questions word for word is that they tend to be rather long.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is right that the poorest in society end up paying the price for the loss of financial control that we saw in this country under the previous Government. He referred to the liabilities in public service pensions. Those liabilities are, on the latest figures, more than £1.1 trillion. That is the entire education budget for more than 20 years.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the flexibility that the Government are showing today in moving this whole issue forward. Where the statement dealt with the Government’s revised offer, the Chief Secretary provided some examples of the benefits that will accrue to some workers. Will he outline some examples of where people will be worse off? To press him on the point about the consumer prices index, he must surely have the facts and figures, but by how much on average will people be worse off as a result of the switch from RPI?

Danny Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman asks who will be worse off, which is a fair question. One flaw with the current final salary arrangements in the public sector is that the contributions of low-paid workers go towards subsidising the pensions of the highest earners.
	That is one reason why we want to move to a career average basis. Some of the losers from that would be the highest paid, particularly those such as chief executives of local authorities, who receive a large jump in salary at the end of their career and then get a pension as if that were their salary for their whole lifetime.

Jennifer Willott: There has been much concern over the last few years about a race to the bottom with pensions, particularly given the parlous state of pensions in much of the private sector. Can the Minister reassure us that the proposals currently on the table will remain a gold standard and will ensure generous but sustainable pensions in the public sector in the long run?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the context in which 13 million workers in the private sector have no pension provision at all. That is something that will be taken care of as the NEST—National Employment Savings Trust—scheme is introduced. These will remain gold standard pensions. It is quite right that public sector workers who make a lifetime of contribution to serving this country should get the best pensions available, but the proposal will ensure that the costs are brought under control and that it is affordable to the taxpayer—not just now, but in the decades to come.

Nicholas Dakin: I very much welcome the tone of the Chief Secretary’s statement. In line with the principle of transparency, which he underscored in his statement, will he make sure that there is an independent valuation of the teachers’ pension scheme?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome of the tone we have taken. I hope that, in due course, he will welcome the substance as well. As to valuation information, it is being provided in the context of the scheme-by-scheme discussions. The trade unions have put forward many requests for information to be provided so that alternatives can be costed. All that work is going on in the context of the scheme-by-scheme discussions, but the valuation that was going to take place has been suspended on the basis that changes have been made, not least to the discount rate, which make that work invalid. It is best to wait until a new scheme is in place before we carry that work forward.

Margot James: I very much welcome the transitional arrangements outlined by my right hon. Friend for people 10 years away from retirement. It is particularly important for groups that would have joined the public services at a time when, unlike now, public sector pay was less than private sector pay. Will he outline roughly how many people will be affected?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for those comments. The transitional protection is a very important part of this new offer. It is right that people who are within 10 years of retirement should have certainty about their planning for retirement. That principle has been observed on both sides in respect of the state pension age. I estimate that the transitional provision will protect more than 1 million public sector workers from any impact at all as a result of the changes.

Gordon Banks: Can the Chief Secretary confirm that every penny paid in increased pension contributions will find its way into pension pots?

Danny Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman should know, in unfunded schemes there is no such thing as a pension pot. The money is not gathered together and invested. The contributions made today do not in any way meet the costs of the pensions being paid out today. What we are offering is what might be called a new deal for public service pensions, whereby additional contributions and longer working will help to ensure that public sector workers can still have the best pensions available. Many low-income workers will actually receive better pensions in retirement.

Sarah Newton: I welcome the statement, because I think it demonstrates that the Government are listening to the concerns expressed by nurses, teachers and firefighters in my constituency. During the scheme-by-scheme discussions, will the Chief Secretary bear in mind those with physically demanding jobs, such as firefighters? Will they retain the right to retire before reaching the state pension age, while still benefiting from their pensions?

Danny Alexander: That is a very good question. We are, of course, listening carefully to representations. As I have said, we have delayed setting a cost ceiling for the firefighters’ pension scheme, particularly in the light of some of the issues that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but what we are discussing now is the normal pension age for schemes; early retirement arrangements on an actuarily reduced basis will remain in place.

Pat Glass: Most of the examples given by the Chief Secretary have involved well-paid public sector workers who have been in continuous employment, but many of my constituents do not fall into that category. Can he tell us how a low-paid part-time worker earning, say, £8,000 a year and working 15 hours a week would fare?

Danny Alexander: I cannot give a specific example, because I do not have the necessary figures to hand, but I can say that I expect the lowest-paid people to benefit most from these arrangements. At present, those on the lowest salaries and with the flattest career paths contribute most to the pensions of the highest earners. The change to a career-average basis will ensure that many workers, particularly of the sort whom the hon. Lady has described, end up with more rather than less income in retirement. I consider that to be a right and proper reward for those people’s commitment to public service.

Guto Bebb: I too welcome the statement, but given that economic growth, economic development and job creation in my constituency depend on the small business community, can the Chief Secretary advise owners of small businesses how they should go about amassing a pension pot of half a million pounds before they retire?

Danny Alexander: It is true that in the private sector an enormous volume of contributions would be necessary to build up the pension pot that is required to fund the
	pensions that we are discussing today. The equivalent would be a pension pot of £600,000 or £700,000 a year. That is a measure of the Government’s recognition of the commitment that public service workers make.

Derek Twigg: The Chief Secretary said earlier that the general taxpayer rather than public service workers had been footing the bill. May I point out to him that public service workers are also taxpayers, and that it has not helped that some people have been able to use the high pensions of the best-paid in the public sector as a typical example of those in the rest of the sector? We all know that pensions in the rest of the sector are very low.
	Will the Chief Secretary place in the House of Commons Library some typical examples of the way in which the change from RPI to CPI has affected different sectors? Perhaps he could include examples involving part-time workers such as those cited by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass).

Danny Alexander: As I said earlier, that depends on a variety of circumstances, but today we are publishing a document that the hon. Gentleman can obtain from the Vote Office, entitled “Public sector pensions: good pensions that last”, and I am sure that it will provide much of the information that he requires.

Jo Swinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s improved offer on public sector pensions, which shows that the Government are serious about meaningful negotiations. Will he challenge the rather misleading claims from some quarters that people will have to pay more, work longer and get less? Surely the truth is that—although people will indeed have to pay more and work longer—far from getting less, they will get much more, not least because on average they will receive 10 years’ more pension payments than the previous generation.

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she is also right to warn people against some of the misleading propaganda that is circulating. I think it important for public sector workers—teachers, nurses and civil servants—to take time to study the offer that we are making for themselves. The document that we are publishing will be available on a website, so they can check out the new arrangements. As my hon. Friend says, yes, we are asking people to work longer and yes, we are asking them to contribute more, but many people will receive a significantly better pension on retirement than they would receive now.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was grateful to the Chief Secretary yesterday for answering my question about public sector workers who will no longer contribute to their pensions. He told me then that he expected 1% of the pay bill to cease to contribute, but added that he did not know who that 1% were. Given that they are very likely to be low-paid part-time workers rather than the highly paid chief executives to whom he has referred, will he make the figures available to the House?

Danny Alexander: It is true that I gave the figure of 1% of the pay bill. That is an assumption that was audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility and published in the relevant fiscal forecast that it presented.
	It is precisely for the reason given by the hon. Lady that we have chosen to tier the pension contribution increases according to income, so that no one earning less than £15,000 a year will experience any contribution increase. Those earning between £15,000 and £21,000 a year will experience a much reduced increase, while the heaviest burden of increases will be borne by the highest earners. That is the right and proper way in which to ensure that there are no opt-outs.

Andrew Percy: While it is true that all taxpayers pay for the pensions that we are discussing, it is low-paid private sector workers working beyond retirement age—such as my dad—who are subsidising public sector pensions while receiving none of the benefits. I therefore welcome the proposed changes, and hope that my former colleagues in the teaching profession will accept them.
	Firefighters’ pensions were mentioned earlier. Firefighters from my constituency whom I met yesterday were worried less about change than about whether they would be fit to do their job after the age of 55. Are the Government still prepared to discuss that issue with the union?

Danny Alexander: Yes, and John Hutton said in his report that he thought it appropriate to retain a lower retirement age for firefighters, the armed forces and the police. It is precisely because of the importance of such issues that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—who is leading the negotiations—is taking longer than expected to set the cost ceiling. That will enable us to ensure that the arrangements for firefighters are appropriate and will allow them to continue to receive a very decent pension in return for what is a very important contribution to our society.

Andrew Love: Like many other Members, I received a delegation of teachers last week, and they told me that their current scheme was fair and sustainable. They will be less than delighted by the Chief Secretary’s earlier answer relating to a valuation of that scheme, for which they have been calling for some time. Does the Chief Secretary recognise that he must come clean about the costs to both taxpayers and employees if he is to win the battle to change hearts and minds?

Danny Alexander: Of course I recognise that we must win that battle for hearts and minds. That is why I am providing so much information today, and urging public sector workers to look at the Government’s deal directly rather than necessarily relying on the information that they receive from their trade unions.
	I do not think it right to suggest that the current teachers’ pension scheme is fair and sustainable. Let us consider the relevant contribution rates. When the scheme was introduced many decades ago, employer and employee each contributed 5%. Now the employer contributes 16%, while the employee contributes about 6%. There has been a big change in the affordability of the scheme, and so far all the cost has fallen on the taxpayer.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public sector should examine very carefully the generous revised terms that he has announced before considering strike action?
	Such action would merely serve to hurt millions in the private sector who pay their taxes in order to produce public sector pensions that they themselves can only dream of.

Danny Alexander: I do indeed hope that the trade unions will examine the proposals carefully. I was encouraged when they said that they would at our meeting this morning. Of course trade unions need to take time to understand the impact of the changes, but I hope that on reflection they will accept that the new offer constitutes a generous enhancement from the Government, and a fair and reasonable basis on which to reach agreement in the scheme-by-scheme talks that will take place during the next couple of months.

Lilian Greenwood: The Chief Secretary said he believed that pension changes should be sustainable and fair. Will he confirm that he intends additional contributions to the local government pension scheme—which is a funded scheme—by scheme members to go straight to the Treasury rather than into their pension fund?

Danny Alexander: No, that is not correct.

David Rutley: According to reports in today’s press, only 40% of private sector workers receive pension contributions, while 85% of public sector servants receive not only a pension, but a more generous one. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to address these differences, rather than engage in irresponsible strike action?

Danny Alexander: I wholeheartedly agree that it is time to address these differences, but not by trying to get public sector involvement in pensions down to the level in the private sector. What we need to do is what we have done today: set out an offer that combines affordability for the general taxpayer with proper pensions as a reward for a career in the public service, along with steps to encourage more private sector workers to involve themselves in pensions. That is precisely the basis of the new NEST scheme, which the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), is taking forward.

Diana Johnson: Does the Chief Secretary regret the way negotiations have been conducted so far, with him practising megaphone diplomacy, not providing information requested by the trade unions, and causing a great deal of distress and upset to my constituents who are public sector workers?

Danny Alexander: I think what the hon. Lady has said is total nonsense; that is not an appropriate characterisation of what we have done. I do not regret the way the talks have progressed for the past eight months, and I look forward to reaching agreement on this issue, with or without the support of the Opposition.

Gavin Williamson: Will my right hon. Friend outline how he thinks the unions should respond to the proposals he has set out today? Does he agree with most Members on the Government Benches, who think the unions should respond by today calling off any planned industrial action?

Danny Alexander: It is for the unions to reflect and decide on their response. I am not standing here at the Dispatch Box to respond for them; it is strange enough to respond for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. I hope that the trade unions will, on reflection, realise that this offer provides a justification for putting renewed effort and vigour into the scheme-by-scheme discussions and much less effort and vigour into any possible strike action.

Kevin Brennan: What is the cost to the public purse of the changes the right hon. Gentleman has announced today?

Danny Alexander: The cost ceiling under these changes will be 8% higher than the previous cost ceiling we set out.

Dominic Raab: My question has just been answered.

Mr Speaker: Well, that is a first—not the fact that the question has been answered, but the fact that a Member has been self-denying to the extent that he sits down when his question has already been dealt with. That is an interesting precedent.

Mark Durkan: Has the Chief Secretary taken into account the particular responsibilities of devolved Administrations and the rights of their public sector workers—many of them low paid, and all of them tax-paying—and do the terms of today’s offer differ from the previous terms about which he wrote to those Administrations?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. These matters have been discussed regularly at the Finance Ministers quadrilaterals, which bring the Finance Ministers of the devolved Administrations and me together, so people have been kept informed. The tradition has been that the devolved pension schemes follow by analogy the agreements reached at a UK level. I will write to the devolved Finance Ministers to set out what I have announced today, so they can take that into account in their own decisions on these matters.

Martin Horwood: I strongly welcome the improved flexibility, and ask that we be as generous as that allows. This is not just about fair rewards in future or burdens on the taxpayer; it is also about recruitment and retention now, to keep people in the police, teaching and, in my constituency, GCHQ, working for the well-being and safety of taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike.

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend makes the point that public sector workers have traditionally considered the level of pension to be an important part of their reward package, and they are right to think that. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the offer we have set out today constitutes a very fair reward for a career spent in precisely the sort of public service institutions he has described.

Katy Clark: The Chief Secretary will be aware that one of the concerns about increasing contributions is that that will lead to a rise in opt-out rates, particularly among low-paid and part-time workers, most of whom are women. In his
	answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), he mentioned an assumption of 1% of the pay bill, but the schemes and their memberships are very different. Will he ensure that opt-out rates are analysed on a scheme-by-scheme basis, as rising contributions could have a major effect on the viability of some schemes?

Danny Alexander: We have taken that on board through the proposals for a tiered increase in contributions. The hon. Lady will be aware that 80% of the public sector workers who earn less than £15,000 a year and will not have any contribution rate at all are women.

Richard Graham: Some months ago, when the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General told the House that one of his key negotiating goals was to protect, if not improve, the pensions of lower and middle-earning public sector workers, not all my constituents were convinced. Today, he and the Chief Secretary have delivered on that promise, and hard-working nurses at the Gloucestershire royal hospital and teachers in Gloucester will welcome the news that many of them will have better pensions than at present. However, does the Chief Secretary share my disappointment that the Opposition Front-Bench team has been unable to welcome today’s news, especially as workers in businesses such as Wall’s in my constituency have recently seen their own pensions significantly watered down?

Danny Alexander: I agree. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important role played by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. If I may say so, we make a good team in these negotiations. These are very generous pension schemes, particularly for low and middle-income earners, and rightly so. We must make sure the funding of them is sustainable in both the short term and the long term. That is one of the reasons why I find the Opposition’s lack of welcome for the announcement so frustrating.

Julie Elliott: Although I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement, I am disappointed that it has taken eight months to get any serious negotiation and any movement from the Government. I am particularly concerned about two issues. The first is to do with low-paid women workers in the pension scheme, and particularly those who work part time. Has any analysis been done of the possible impacts if they opt out of their pension scheme, therefore receiving less money when they retire from the benefits they then receive? On the firefighters’ pension scheme, we have heard conflicting answers from the Chief Secretary: he has said they will have actuarially reduced pensions, but he has also said they will be allowed to retire early. I am therefore a little confused as to where the Chief Secretary stands on that.

Danny Alexander: I am very grateful indeed for the first welcome for my statement from an Opposition Member. The hon. Lady is right that it is important to consider low-paid workers, which is why we are proposing to move to a career-average basis, under which low-paid workers will keep more of their own contributions, instead of subsidising the pensions of the highest earners.
	It is also why we have tiered the contributions increase in order to try to prevent opt-out. The negotiations on the firefighters’ scheme are ongoing, and I am told they are going well. We have delayed the publication of the cost ceiling to make sure we can take into account all the issues raised by firefighters in the discussions.

Jane Ellison: I welcome today’s statement. Many of the measures will meet the concerns of people such as the firefighters I met yesterday. On career-average earnings, does my right hon. Friend share my aspiration about the system being fairer to those who have taken career breaks, many of whom will be women?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that important point. Public service pensions must reflect not only the careers of people who spend an unbroken working life in the public sector, but the careers of the many people who take time out. By having a career-average basis, especially when each year’s contribution is revalued by earnings, people who take a career break will still get the full value of the contributions they have made in both parts of their career.

Christopher Pincher: I congratulate the Chief Secretary on listening so carefully and responding so generously to the representations on pensions. The police cannot strike, of course, and Lord Hutton has dealt with them separately, but can the Chief Secretary tell us a little more about the proposals for police pensions?

Danny Alexander: Those proposals will be brought forward later. Police pensions are being considered by Tom Winsor in his second report. His recommendations will not be about the police alone, but we need to make sure that police officers get a proper, fair and decent pension for the contribution they make to our society.

Clive Betts: The Chief Secretary has once again said that all accrued rights will be protected. Will he confirm, however, that the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index will, in practice, affect the accrued rights of every single member of every public sector pension scheme?

Danny Alexander: I do not believe that that is a correct use of the term “accrued rights”. Of course we will protect the accrued rights in full. The RPI to CPI switch will have the effect that I described in my statement. That is the subject of a legal dispute at the moment, but it was the right decision by the Government.

Andrew Bridgen: Has the Chief Secretary received any constructive representations from the Labour party regarding this important topic or has its involvement been limited to the irresponsible words of the shadow education spokesman, who is no longer in his place, condoning teachers’ strikes?

Danny Alexander: I am yet to receive a constructive suggestion from the Labour party, but I live in hope.

Stephen Lloyd: I welcome the statement. As the Chief Secretary knows, I broadly support the direction of travel that the Government have been taking, but I had some concerns. I think that tremendous progress has been made and I am grateful for that. I have a technical question that is important to a lot of my constituents: what is the current split between employer and employee contributions for teachers and nurses, and how would that change under his proposals?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome. Today’s announcement will increase the cost ceiling for the talks. We will make sure that the employer contribution is still significantly greater than the employee contribution, but of course the contributions increase that we are proposing rebalances them to take account of past increases and longevity. On the teachers’ pension scheme for England and Wales, the gross cost ceiling that we are setting out today will be 21.7%, the taxpayer contribution will be 12.1% and the employee contribution will be 9.6%. Of course these matters still have to be discussed in the teacher scheme-specific negotiations, but that is the basic framework that we are setting out today.

Peter Bone: The whole House will welcome the statement from one of the most capable Ministers in the coalition Government, who has been keeping the House informed. The point about the transition was the biggest concern to constituents who came to see me. May we have it clearly put on the record that nobody who is within 10 years of their current retirement date will have to retire later or will be worse off?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I hope that Mrs Bone shares his views. He is right to say that nobody who is within 10 years of retirement on 1 April next year will see any change either to their retirement age or to the benefits that they receive.

Mr Speaker: That answer will doubtless wing its way to Mrs Bone in a matter of minutes.

Stephen Mosley: I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his statement. May I also ask him to continue to negotiate and engage positively with the trade unions in the weeks and months ahead?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman can certainly ask that and I certainly will do so. The Government are
	setting out this new offer, which is conditional on agreement being reached. The Government will continue to work very hard to achieve that agreement, both in the scheme-specific discussions and in the central process, which we will also continue.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Chief Secretary agree that, as longevity is still increasing by about two years a decade and is likely to carry on doing so, we cannot stick our head in the sand or sit on the fence, as we have seen the Opposition do? All parties need to work together to reach a proper consensus, so that we can achieve a long-lasting, sustainable settlement.

Danny Alexander: I think that it would be in the national interest to have a proper cross-party consensus on today’s proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the increases in longevity. By linking the normal pension age to the state pension age we can ensure that the taxpayer is protected from that in future, because as longevity increases, the state pension age can be changed. That is the right way to protect pensions, rather than the previous Government’s cap and share arrangement, which would have meant complex negotiations every three years. That would have resulted in both increases in contributions and reductions in benefits every three years. By setting out this scheme now, we have one that can last for 25 years without the need for further negotiation.

Philip Hollobone: In the private sector, where most people work, getting an annual pension of £10,000 typically requires a pension pot of £200,000, which would buy a very nice house in Kettering. Does the Chief Secretary share my concern that many public sector workers seem to think that private sector provision is far more generous than it actually is?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is right about that, and he makes an important point. Part of the reason for setting out some of the information about pension pots today is precisely to widen public understanding of the comparison. That is not to do down public sector workers—in fact, what we are setting out today is a properly positive and generous offer to them—but we are making it clear that there is a wide gulf and we need to raise standards in the private sector too.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Chief Secretary and colleagues, whose succinctness enabled 47 Back-Bench Members to question the Chief Secretary in 41 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. It shows what can be done when we try.

Point of Order

Derek Twigg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, the Minister for the Cabinet Office said that the time for transparency had come, yet when I asked the Chief Secretary, who is now leaving, to put in the Library examples of how the changes that he announced today will affect different sectors in typical cases, he refused to do so. You will know that pensions are a complicated area. We have been given the information today but we have not seen the details yet. Surely you would agree that putting in the Library some examples of the impact on different sectors would have helped the House to come to some conclusion about whether the deal is good or bad. Can you give us any assistance in ensuring that we get that sort of information, which would be helpful to the whole of Parliament?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is underestimating himself, because I do not think that he needs any help from me. He is a pretty experienced and ingenious Member who is well able to use the resources of the Table Office to pursue his concerns; he has, of course, highlighted them. I just have this lingering suspicion, of which I hope he will cure me, that he is trying to continue the debate, but I am sure I am wrong.

Derek Twigg: On a point of order—

Mr Speaker: Not on the same matter.

Derek Twigg: On a point of order—

Mr Speaker: On a completely unrelated matter? No, well we will leave it there for today. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten- minute rule motion, and I call the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has been patiently waiting.

Devolved Administrations (Armed Forces Covenant Reports)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.23)

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on the devolved administrations to report annually on the Military Covenant and the effects of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces on service people; and for connected purposes.
	My party fully supports the principles of the military covenant, and we welcome the commitments given by the Government in the Armed Forces Bill that strengthen the legal standing of the covenant. We also acknowledge the recent reports prepared by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who is in his place, including his recent report on the services available to military amputees. We commend him on his excellent work.
	I recently attended an event in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) to recognise the contribution of the Irish Guards, who have recently returned from operational deployment in Afghanistan. Several amputee soldiers who had been seriously wounded during their time in Helmand province were there, and I was reminded of the importance of ensuring that these soldiers are properly cared for and looked after. They are, of course, based in England and have access to the highest standards of care, but one wonders whether the same level of care and treatment would be available to them if they lived in Northern Ireland.
	Yet Northern Ireland provides a major contribution to our armed forces. In fact, more than 20% of the reserve forces regularly deployed on operations come from Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we make up 3% of the UK population. That is a remarkable achievement for the reserve forces in the Province. Sadly, some of those who are deployed are killed or sustain life-changing injuries, and it is important that these soldiers receive the care and support that they need, wherever they live in the United Kingdom and wherever they are based.
	In respect of this Bill, I wish to acknowledge the excellent contribution made by service charities, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Combat Stress, the Army Benevolent Fund—now known as The Soldiers Charity—and the regimental benevolent funds, whose work should not be forgotten. They very often provide help for soldiers who have been seriously injured on operational deployment. In Northern Ireland we are very proud of the giving by our people to such charities. Northern Ireland donates more per head to the poppy appeal than any other region of the United Kingdom.
	We want to ensure that our soldiers receive the care and support that they need when they most need it, regardless of which region of the United Kingdom they are located in. That is why I am introducing the Bill today. We want to ensure that there is uniformity across the United Kingdom in the delivery of the objectives and principles in the military covenant.
	For example, we have quite a high number of former service personnel in Northern Ireland suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, because we had more than 30 years of conflict in which the Army was deployed on the longest operation in the history of the British Army, Operation Banner. Yet I talk to many of those veterans and they tell me that they are not receiving the level of support and care that they need. They contrast that with the level of care that is available in other parts of the United Kingdom. Clearly there is a deficit, and we want to see it addressed. How do we go about that?
	Another issue for us in Northern Ireland is the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive is the only devolved Administration that does not participate in the covenant reference group. The Scottish Government are represented, the Welsh Assembly Government are represented, but not the Northern Ireland Executive, so again there is a lack of uniformity across the United Kingdom. Although of course we cannot interfere in the day-to-day workings of the devolved Administrations, nevertheless, as it is Parliament that is charged with oversight of the military covenant, Parliament should place a duty on all the devolved Administrations to report annually on what they are doing to fulfil their obligations under the military covenant. That reporting mechanism would enable Parliament to assess the extent to which there is a lack of uniformity across the United Kingdom in the level of care and support provided to both serving and former armed services personnel.
	That is the main thrust of the Bill. We want to ensure that over time we achieve that uniformity and hold the devolved Administrations to account in fulfilling their commitments and obligations under the military covenant. It may be the case that upon receiving the annual reports from the devolved Administrations, we would want to debate those reports here in the House and consider the extent to which the devolved Administrations are fulfilling their obligations.
	I recognise that in the Armed Forces Bill, as amended in the other place, the Government have made provision for the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on the military covenant, and that the report should take account of the views of the devolved Administrations, but it does not place an obligation on the devolved Administrations to provide those views, and if the devolved Administration does not endorse its part of the report, that element of the report is not brought to the House. My Bill would take the devolved
	Administrations’ obligation a step further and give them a duty to provide such a report. It is only right that we should do so, in the interests of the men and women who serve this country. That would strengthen the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.
	As I said, we are immensely proud of the contribution that the men and women of this country make in our armed forces. We know that these are difficult times and that there is pressure on public services, but we fully endorse the principles behind the military covenant that when our armed forces personnel place themselves in danger in the line of duty and sustain serious injuries, or when their families are left bereaved by the loss of a loved one, they receive the support that they undoubtedly deserve, in terms of adequate care and treatment. Therefore we do not believe it is unjust or unfair to place a duty on the devolved Administrations to provide an annual report to the House stating exactly what they are doing to implement the principles and objectives of the military covenant.
	My remarks are not intended as a criticism of some of the excellent work already being undertaken by the devolved Administrations. I know that in Northern Ireland we have particular problems with the way in which our government system operates, but even there, very good work has taken forward key elements of the military covenant. We want that to go further. We want to ensure that wherever they live in the United Kingdom, whatever region of the United Kingdom they reside in or are based in, our armed forces personnel have access to the same level of care and support as they would have in other parts of the Kingdom.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to present the Bill this afternoon. I trust that the House will give its support to the measure.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr Julian Brazier, Mr Gregory Campbell, Mr Nigel Dodds, Thomas Docherty, John Glen, Mr Dai Havard, Patrick Mercer, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Sandra Osborne, Jim Shannon and David Simpson present the Bill.
	Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 243).

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

[ Relevant document: The Third Report from the Justice Committee, on the  G overnment’s proposed reform of legal aid, HC 681, and the Government’s response thereto, Cm 8111.]

[3rd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Status of Director and Lord Chancellor

‘(1) The Director is to carry out the functions of the office on behalf of the Crown.
	(2) Service as the Director is service in the civil service of the State.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor is to be treated as a corporation sole—
	(a) for all purposes relating to the acquisition, holding, management and disposal of property and interests in property under this Part, and
	(b) for all other purposes relating to the Lord Chancellor’s functions in connection with legal aid and other functions under this Part.
	(4) An instrument in connection with the acquisition, holding, management or disposal by the Lord Chancellor of property or an interest in property under this Part or for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(b) may be executed on the Lord Chancellor’s behalf by a person authorised by the Lord Chancellor for that purpose.
	(5) Any such instrument purporting to have been executed by the Lord Chancellor or on the Lord Chancellor’s behalf is to be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been so executed.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 9—Northern Ireland: information about financial resources.
	New clause 17—Extension of scope of legal aid in complex cases—
	‘(1) Civil legal services other than services described in Part 1 of Schedule 1 are to be available to an individual under this Part if subsection (2) is satisfied.
	(2) This subsection is satisfied where the Director—
	(a) has made a complex case determination in relation to the individual and the services, and
	(b) has determined that the individual qualifies for the services in accordance with this Part,
	(and has not withdrawn either determination).
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a complex case determination is a determination—
	(a) that the individual has complex, interconnected needs in relation to which the individual requires comprehensive civil legal services, and
	(b) not all of those civil legal services would otherwise be available to the individual because they do not all fall within the scope of Schedule 1.’.
	New clause 43—Funding for civil legal advice—
	‘(1) The Lord Chancellor may make funding available for the promotion of civil legal advice on matters not included in Schedule 1, Part 1 where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that the provision of such services would be consistent with the purpose of the civil legal services provided for under that schedule.
	(2) The Lord Chancellor may make arrangements by—
	(a) entering into funding arrangements with other Government departments and public bodies to facilitate the provision of services,
	(b) making arrangements to support the delivery of civil legal advice through the provision of grant in aid to providers of legal services, including any consortia or partnership arrangements into which providers of legal services may choose to enter, and
	(c) any additional arrangements which the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to ensure the provision of services as set out in subsection (1).
	(3) In making any such arrangements the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that value for money is achieved.
	(4) Welsh Ministers shall be consulted upon the funding and provision of civil legal advice in Wales.
	(5) “Civil legal advice” means the types of services given in section 7(1) and includes advice and assistance which is usually given by any representative in the steps preliminary or incidental to proceedings and as to any appeal, mediation and other forms of dispute resolution, but does not include representation for the purposes of proceedings.’.
	Government new schedule 3—‘Northern Ireland: information about financial resources.
	Amendment 162,in clause 1, page2,line7, at end insert—
	‘(c) funding for the promotion of civil legal services, not including representation, on matters not included in Schedule 1, Part 1 where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that the provision of such services would be consistent with the purpose of the civil legal services provided for under that schedule.’.
	Amendment 123,in clause 4, page3,line25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	‘(4A) The Director must, except to the extent that section (4B) applies, act under the direction of the Lord Chancellor.
	(4B) The Director must act independently when performing any functions or duties under this Part.’.
	Amendment 116,page8,line29, leave out clause 12.
	Amendment 104,in clause 12, page8,line31, leave out from ‘station’ to end of line 20 on page 9.
	Amendment 125,page8,line35, leave out subsections (2) to (7).
	Amendment 90,page9,line27, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
	‘(9) Sections 20 and 26(2) do not apply in relation to this section’.
	Amendment 148,page21,line7, leave out clause 26.
	Government amendments 1, 2 and 25 to 27
	Amendment 69,in schedule 4, page130,line36, at end insert—
	‘(3A) A transfer scheme shall make pension provision and compensation provision for and in respect of persons who become employed in the civil service of the State under paragraph 1 which is at least as favourable as the pension provision and compensation provision applicable to them immediately before they ceased to be employees of the Legal Services Commission.’.
	Government amendment 64
	Amendment 71,page131,line9, at end insert—
	‘“compensation provision” means the provision of compensation under a compensation scheme;’.
	Amendment 70,page131,line14, at end insert—
	‘“pension provision” means the provision of pension and other benefits under an occupational pension scheme;’.
	Government amendments 65, 137, 66 to 68, 138, 19 and 54

Jonathan Djanogly: We now move on to, or perhaps I should say back to, legal aid. When we discussed legal aid on our first day on Report, we had two very constructive, albeit lengthy, debates in which I took more than three dozen interventions. That was partly the reason, along with the many valuable contributions that were made, why we were unable to cover all the groupings—[Interruption.] I know that that disappointed a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us not start where we left off the other day. Let us see if we can make progress. We do not want to run out of time, and I am sure that those on both Front Benches want to make good time.

Jonathan Djanogly: I want to try to avoid delay today, so I shall speak to Government amendments now and respond to the points made in debate later, rather than pre-empting in my opening remarks what hon. Members may have to say about their amendments.
	Government new clause 4, which is a technical amendment, has two purposes. First, it seeks to provide clarity about the role of the director of legal aid casework, by ensuring that the exercise of the functions of the office is on behalf of the Crown, and that service as the director is service in the civil service of the state. The second purpose of new clause 4 is to ensure that the Lord Chancellor is treated as a corporation sole for the purposes of part 1 of the Bill.
	The new clause is necessary in order to clarify the position in relation to the Lord Chancellor’s ability to hold an interest in land for those purposes, and so applies to charges that transfer from the Legal Services Commission to the Lord Chancellor at the point when the LSC is abolished, and for future charges to be taken over property under clause 24. The statutory charge is the charge that arises under clause 24 on any property recovered or preserved, including costs, by a legally aided person in respect of the amounts spent by the Lord Chancellor in securing their legal aid services and any other amounts payable by them under clauses 22 and 23. The amendment is essential, as the current value of charges held by the LSC is £212 million.
	Government new clause 9 and new schedule 3 make provision on information sharing in relation to checking a person’s financial eligibility for legal aid in Northern Ireland. They replicate for Northern Ireland the information gateway for England and Wales created by clause 21 and further provided for in clause 32. Government amendments 26 and 27 are technical amendments that make it clear that regulations made under new schedule 3 will be prescribed not by the Lord Chancellor but by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Government amendment 54 is also a technical amendment that makes it clear that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland
	for the purposes of new clause 9 and new schedule 3, which create the information gateway, and for the purposes of clauses 38 to 40. I should point out that under paragraph 2(4) of new schedule 3, it will be a criminal offence to use or disclose information contrary to the provisions of paragraph 2.
	Government amendments 25 and 64 to 68 relate to the transfer of LSC employees to the civil service when the LSC is abolished. The powers currently set out in the Bill include a power, in schedule 4, for the Lord Chancellor to make transfer schemes to transfer to the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State the LSC’s rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with an LSC occupational pension scheme, of which there are currently two, or compensation scheme. The occupational pension and compensation scheme arrangements for LSC employees are different from those for existing civil servants. When the employees transfer to the civil service and become civil servants, they will join the principal civil service pension scheme.
	Amendment 64 confers new powers upon the Lord Chancellor that can be exercised as part of any transfer scheme. Proposed new sub-paragraph (6A), set out in amendment 64, allows for the Lord Chancellor to apply legislation with modifications as far as it is necessary to give effect to any transfer scheme. That is appropriate when transfer schemes are of an administrative nature relating to the specific issues in question. For example, it will allow the Lord Chancellor to provide that an aspect of pensions legislation applies in a particular way to that particular scheme. It will assist, as appropriate, in enabling the continuation of the LSC pension scheme or schemes after the abolition of the LSC so that they can continue for the benefit of their pensioner and preserved members. Those are members who have contributed to the schemes before leaving LSC employment and either draw a pension from the scheme or will be entitled to do so in future.
	For compensation scheme arrangements, as well as allowing the modification of legislation, proposed new sub-paragraph (6B), set out in amendment 64, provides that the transfer scheme may amend or otherwise modify the existing LSC compensation scheme. That will allow compensation arrangements for LSC employees transferring to the civil service to be brought into line with those of other civil servants over a transitional period.
	Amendment 65 reflects the fact that when LSC employees transfer to the civil service there will no longer be any active members of the two current LSC occupational pension schemes, known as the No. 3 and No. 4 pension schemes. The amendment provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to make a scheme to merge the two residual pension schemes. It is explicit that a scheme exercising this power must not result in members of the pension schemes, or other beneficiaries under the schemes, being deprived of any rights accrued prior to the merger.
	The LSC’s No. 3 pension scheme has fewer than 100 pensioner and preserved members, and no current LSC staff members. The No. 4 scheme is for current staff and also has a number of pensioner and preserved members. At present there is much duplication in the administration of the No. 3 and No. 4 schemes, such as producing two sets of accounts and actuarial valuations. Merging the schemes would allow us to cut significantly
	the administration costs of running two trust-based schemes. The amendment will also give the power to wind up an LSC occupational pension scheme.
	Amendment 25 corrects a slip in clause 38(7)(j). The intention was not to make regulations that contain free-standing provision that modifies an Act either directly or indirectly, subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments 66 to 68 clarify the fact that the regulation-making power provided to the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 10 of schedule 4 can be used in connection not only with transfers affected by schedule 4, but with schemes under schedule 4, meaning schemes dealing with something other than a transfer.
	Government amendments 137 and 138 concern schedule 4 to the Bill, which governs transfers of employees and assets following the abolition of the LSC. They are purely technical amendments that simplify existing provisions. Paragraph 10(1) of schedule 4 currently allows the Lord Chancellor to make consequential supplementary, incidental or transitional provision by regulation, and paragraph 10(2)(b) specifies separately that such regulations may include transitory or savings provision. Rather than continue to separate these related provisions, for the purposes of simplification amendment 137 brings them together in a revised paragraph 10(1) and Amendment 138 amends paragraph 10(2) to reflect that simplification. That mirrors an identical amendment to clause 115.
	Finally, Government amendments 1, 2 and 19 are minor and technical amendments to clause 32 and schedule 5, consequential on the removal in Committee of what was then clause 71.

Andy Slaughter: If the Minister was sincere when he said in his opening remarks that we will make good progress and deal with as many of the groups of amendments as we can today, I applaud him for it, but it is a challenging task. There has been a statement so we have barely four hours left to debate huge chunks of the Bill, which is impractical. It will no doubt be assisted by the fact that, with the exception of the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has just appeared, there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher here. [ Interruption. ] I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord); I thought he was a Liberal Democrat. I withdraw that slur on his character immediately.
	There is a serious point. We had a disgraceful situation in the House on Monday when the Minister called in Conservative Back Benchers, one by one, to speak on domestic violence and clinical negligence, particularly as they affect the most severe injuries and brain-damaged children, and to waste time. By wasting time and then voting against amendments that would deal with those issues, the Government prevented us from moving on to a substantive discussion on legal aid. I will not dwell on that point, because I wanted to move on, but I hope that in discussing these amendments, of which there are a broad range, we will be able to do justice to that important subject.
	I will speak principally to amendment 123, which stands in my name. I will get my contributions out of the way in one go by speaking to new clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne
	Fovargue), amendment 148, tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, who for some reason rejected a similar amendment I tabled, and new clause 43, tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), which is a very good one. I will say at the outset that we support all those amendments. I will not deal with amendment 116, which stands in my name, because my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) will make a contribution on that later. For the avoidance of doubt, I will say at the outset that the Opposition will press amendment 116 to a vote, and other hon. Members may wish to press their amendments to a vote.
	Amendment 123 deals with a fairly straightforward point, but an important one, which is in no way party political. The independence of the new director has raised considerable alarm and concern across the professions and the voluntary sector, and indeed with anyone who deals regularly with legal aid. We attempted many times in Committee, with a variety of amendments, to try to push at this and get the Government to give a little. We asked for an appeals process, a vetting process before appointment, which would give some independence, and for assurances in relation to the civil service, which will be working in this area. Every amendment, as was the case throughout the Committee’s proceedings, was rejected. I hope—this is the case in other common law jurisdictions which have moved to a similar system—that the Minister is listening to these proposals. This is not an issue that divides the parties on the abolition of the Legal Services Commission, but it is an issue that strongly divides the parties on the adverse influence, be it perceived or real, that the Government will bring to bear on to the director post once it is firmly ensconced within the Department.
	There is a trend in this Bill towards Government control and authoritarianism, and we will see it when we debate clause 12, whereby the same director of legal aid will get the power to decide whether legal aid is granted to those in extremis—in the worst circumstances—when they have been arrested. We also see the trend in relation to the constraints on the powers of the judiciary, and, although I doubt that we will get time to debate remand today, I note that the Government wish severely to tie the hands of magistrates and judges in relation to whom they can remand in custody. All the time, these measures restrict either citizens’ rights or the rights of independent parties, whether they be the director or the judiciary, to make decisions.
	I heard quite a chilling statement from the Ministry on the radio this morning. I do not know whether other hon. Members heard the compelling interview with Christopher Jefferies on the “Today” programme, which I will not dwell on, because we hope to have time to debate no win, no fee later this afternoon. At the end of the interview no one from the Ministry of Justice—not the Minister, not anyone else—was prepared to come forward. There was simply a statement to this effect: “We believe that deserving cases will still be able to be brought by no win, no fee, but not cases which are too costly or undeserving.”

Jonathan Djanogly: We are talking about legal aid.

Andy Slaughter: The presenter made a mistake—I hope the Minister is not making the same one—in relation to talking about legal aid, as presenters often do, but I assure the House that Mr Jefferies was clearly talking about conditional fee agreements and no win, no fee. The answer is—

Jonathan Djanogly: Yes, but we are talking about legal aid.

Andy Slaughter: I know the Minister does not want to hear this, but in relation to the director the point is that the Government wish to decide who has merit and who does not. That is the charge that the Government have to answer, and in this case they will do so only by ensuring the independence of the director.
	Let me move on, because we are in the midst of a radical reform of the social welfare system. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has embarked on restructuring the way benefits are assessed, calculated and provided, local authorities have had budgets radically reduced, and a housing benefit cap is being introduced. In short, the benefits system is in a period of turmoil, and as a consequence the system of checks and balances on state decision making through the first-tier tribunals is also significantly under pressure, such that more staff are being taken on daily to deal with a growing number of appeals against decisions taken by Jobcentre Plus.
	When in October last year the coalition produced its Green Paper on the reform of legal aid in England and Wales, we were shocked to see that there were cuts of £450 million, as defined in the latest impact assessment, and that they overwhelmingly came from civil legal aid. Things such as education, employment, welfare benefits, debt, housing matters and clinical negligence were taken out of scope, either in their entirety, as in the case of employment, welfare benefits and clinical negligence, or substantially, as in the case of debt, housing and education.
	Means-testing will also change. The Government have proposed the abolition of capital passporting, by which those receiving certain income-based benefits are automatically eligible for legal aid, and the introduction of a new minimum capital contribution, a personal financial contribution towards legal costs.
	The philosophy behind the cuts is explained in the Government’s impact assessment, in which they state:
	“Legal aid may be regarded as a redistributive transfer of resources from taxpayers to those who are most needy, in relation to both the nature and merits of their case and also to their financial position… The Government may consider intervening if there are strong enough failures in the way markets operate…or if there are strong enough failures in existing government interventions”.
	The amendments under discussion simply seek to address the Government’s failure to abide by those principles as set down in their own impact assessment. We are in a period of great need and of great changes to the system, and many meritorious cases are being referred to tribunal. By definition, the financial position of those requiring help with welfare benefits, employment law, debt and housing is necessarily the most precarious of any in society, and £70 a week is often all that stands between some of my constituents and utter destitution. They are in a desperate place.
	Let me give the House one example, in relation to eligibility for disability living allowance. There are so many problems with the private contractor Atos that many seriously ill people are being judged fit for work. I
	leave aside operational issues, such as the fact that, according to its own website, 20% of Atos’s 141 medical assessment centres do not have wheelchair access, because, according to a newspaper report, one third of those refused DLA by Atos have appealed to the first-tier tribunals, and 39% of decisions have been overturned. Furthermore, the report states:
	“The tribunals service…has had to double its capacity in the social security section to deal with the large number of appeals, recruiting an extra 170 paid medical panel members.”
	In a letter to The Guardian , leading mental health charities and a senior consultant from the Royal College of Psychiatrists say:
	“We’ve found that the prospect of incapacity benefit reassessment is causing huge amounts of distress and tragically there have already been cases where people have taken their own life following problems with changes to their benefits.”
	These are not just economic issues; they profoundly affect the most vulnerable individuals.
	The Government’s proposals will seriously damage access to justice for the most vulnerable in society, and their own impact assessment shows that there will be a disproportionate impact on women. Similarly, there is the potential for the cuts to impact disproportionately on black and ethnic minority clients and on those with disabilities.
	That is something the Minister himself acknowledges. When it was put to him that groups with protected characteristics would be affected, he dismissed it, as only a Conservative Minister can, although the Liberal Democrats are getting there, by saying, “Well, that’s because they are disproportionately represented among the most vulnerable.” That is the logic of the Government’s case—“Because vulnerable people get legal aid, and we are cutting it, what do you expect to happen?” Those principles show an absolute absence of moral guidance.

Alan Beith: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but is he proposing cuts in other areas of legal aid in order to maintain his objective of cutting the overall cost while putting legal aid back in place in those fields?

Andy Slaughter: I was going to deal with that at the end of my remarks, but let me do so now. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do so, because two days ago the Minister said, “Oh, the Labour party wants to reinstate £245 million of cuts.” On the same day, however, he put out a press release saying that the Labour party wanted to reinstate £64 million of cuts, and I have grown tired of responding to him. He has heard my response from this Dispatch Box, in Westminster Hall and in Committee time and again, and it is simply this: we would not have made at present the cuts to social welfare legal aid.
	The Minister quantifies those cuts as £64 million, but why did he not proceed with the final parts of Lord Carter’s review and go through the criminal tendering exercise, which was in place and ready to go when the Government took office last year, and which included savings that might have raised twice that sum? I anticipate the figures changing. The figures on savings have changed from £350 million to £450 million within two impact assessments, but, without being more precise than that, we believe that if the Government looked for efficiencies in the criminal legal aid system, first they would save
	more money than they are by cutting social welfare legal aid, and secondly there would not be the same social or financial consequences.
	The Green Paper talks frequently about the possibility of self-representation as a reason for withdrawing legal aid provision, but data provided in answer to a written parliamentary question indicate that there are considerable differences in success rates between those with and those without representation. Owing to a lack of representation, 51,223 meritorious cases that were successful in 2010 at the first-tier tribunals, many of which involved applicants for DLA, incapacity benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and so forth, would not have been successful if the proposed cuts had been in place. The changes will close or severely reduce the operation of law centres, citizens advice bureaux and hundreds of independent advice centres, and limiting the scope of issues which legal aid-funded advisers can help with means that they will not be able to solve people’s problems fully.
	New clause 17, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield addresses precisely that issue. At the end of Monday’s debate, I gave the example of the Wiltshire law centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). That will lose 90% of its funding, and that is not untypical of the cuts being made. In most cases they are above 80%.
	The specific issue that is dealt with my hon. Friend’s new clause is the interconnectivity of people’s problems. We are all too familiar, as constituency MPs, with the individual who comes in with two plastic bags full of paper and is unable to convey the scale of their distress, let alone the complexity of their problems, which may include unpaid debts, threats of eviction, underlying mental health problems and the inability to access the welfare benefit system. Sometimes we can help, and I pay tribute, as I am sure all hon. Members do, to the constituency staff who have developed phenomenal skills at unpicking these issues and dealing sympathetically with them. In many cases, however, legal expert help is needed, but that help will now be severely compromised. If one is allowed to deal only with the threat of eviction but not with the underlying issues of accessing benefits and dependency on debt, one is working with one hand tied behind one’s back.
	The exceptions to the withdrawal of legal aid in certain cases, such as when an applicant for legal aid is at risk of homelessness, are nonsensical distinctions. People who come for aid early on, while they still have manageable rent arrears, can see their case deteriorate rapidly and drastically. The legal aid that would help exactly those people has been withdrawn, and that is Shelter’s No. 1 priority for what should be restored. Let me add, at this point, that we support the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr in his wish to undo what is a calumny in the Bill—measures allowing the Secretary of State by order further to restrict what is in scope for legal aid, but not to expand it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to press his amendment to a vote tonight but I hope that, if he has an opportunity to speak, the Minister will give an indication that that glaring error in the Bill will be corrected.
	The cost of dealing with a single case of homelessness has been estimated at £50,000 by Shelter. Early intervention is an extremely efficient and cost-effective way of preventing
	cases from becoming more complex, difficult to resolve and commensurately expensive. The legal aid Green Paper suggests a shift to telephone advisory services, and this brings us to amendment 148. Although these methods are an efficient and often effective means of delivering certain types of advice, clients presenting with complex or chronic problems gain far better outcomes from face-to-face advice.
	Research by the Legal Action Group has highlighted the issues faced by the most vulnerable in utilising telephone advisory services. It found that full-time employees were the most likely to access an advice service through the telephone line or the internet, at 43%, whereas people in the lowest social class, DE, were least likely to access advice through an advice line or the internet, at 26%. This class of people was also the most likely to experience a social welfare law problem. The Minister’s own impact assessment says that the bottom 20%, in terms of income, will represent 80% of those who suffer from the withdrawal of these services. Overall, people of social class DE are twice as likely as people in all other social classes to experience problems with debts or benefits.
	Issues facing the most vulnerable people include language, comprehension and somewhat more prosaic economic issues such as the expense of calling an 0845 number from a pay-as-you-go mobile when trying to get advice upon being rejected for jobseeker’s allowance. Citizens Advice has noticed a dramatic rise in the volume of cases and the number of people seeking advice in this recession. Advice has been focused on debt, housing, employment and difficulty accessing the benefit system. For example, between April 2008 and 2009, CABs in England and Wales saw daily inquiries relating to redundancy increase by 125%. Local authority cuts combined with the cuts in the Ministry of Justice have inflicted a double whammy on law centres, CABs and third sector organisations. Many organisations that are staffed by a mixture of volunteers and modestly paid staff will be forced to close or reduce staff and service breadth, depth and reach. Indeed, that is already happening.
	We agree that the legal aid budget needs to be contained, as I have already said in response to the intervention of the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and that ways of making savings need to be found. When we were in power we did not shy away from taking those decisions and containing the budget. We had begun and were continuing to implement the recommendations of Lord Carter of Coles and we believe that those outstanding recommendations should have been implemented by this Government. Frankly, we are at a loss to understand why the Government have not looked at the scope of criminal legal aid or at how it is delivered in this country, preferring instead to target the poorest and most vulnerable. I accept that those changes would not have been popular with all the legal sector but they would have delivered substantial savings, which would have been greater than the total cuts to social welfare legal aid we have discussed this week. Let me pay tribute to my colleague the noble Lord Bach who, as Minister with responsibility for legal aid, took exactly that line. He was prepared to be very tough on his own profession but he always protected social welfare legal aid.
	We oppose the cuts because they affect the most vulnerable in society and run the risk of decimating the social welfare and legal advice community. Even at this stage, I urge the Government to rethink their plans. If they will not, I shall ask again, and I am pleased to see that hon. Members from all parties, save the Conservative party, have tabled amendments on this matter for debate today. I hope—I say this in the spirit of wanting to protect those of our constituents who are most vulnerable and most reliant and who need access to justice more than ever today—that those amendments will be pressed to a vote by hon. Members, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and that they will see fit to support our amendments when we push them forward.

Michael Crockart: In the interests of brevity I shall speak only to amendment 116 to which I have added my name. It has been more than 30 years since the National Consumer Council referred to access to advice as the fourth right of citizenship. It was ahead of its time in predicting the coming of an information age in which people’s ability to live full lives as responsible citizens would depend on access to organised, specialist information in order to navigate complex consumer choices, labour markets and state bureaucracy and law. In no area could that be more important than in relation to legal advice in a police station, where the presence of a lawyer acting for a defendant is crucial, although I might not have thought that between 1990 and 1998 when I was a serving police officer in Edinburgh. Solicitors are there to ensure that suspects’ rights are respected, that they are not physically abused, that their confessions are not forged and that they are not detained for longer than is legally allowed. The presence of a lawyer not only protects defendants from police abuse but protects the police from false allegations by defendants about what happened during an interrogation, for example.
	Clause 12 provides the Secretary of State with the flexibility to subject legal aid in police stations to a system of means-testing. The Ministry of Justice has made it clear that such proposals would be modelled on the system currently operating in Scotland, where people who earn more than a certain amount—in Scotland, a weekly disposable income of £105—have to pay a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid. The current system of police station advice in Scotland is only a year old, but the Law Society of Scotland has already stated that it is complex process to operate and to explain to clients, many of whom are in a vulnerable situation.
	The experience north of the border also shows that the provision of adequate verification undoubtedly lengthens the suspect’s time in a police station and that the solicitor often has no evidential proof that the client is eligible or of what their contribution should be. Solicitors also find that the prospects of claiming the contribution from the client are limited when the detention ends without criminal charges. Consequently, in Scotland in the past year, uptake of advice in police stations has fallen to around 25% of cases—roughly half that in England and Wales.
	The Minister will also know that the Scottish situation has been somewhat complicated recently by the judgment in the Cadder case. Previously, when I was a serving officer, suspects could be detained without charge for
	up to six hours and questioned without the presence of a solicitor. Following that case in the Supreme Court last year, the Lord Advocate issued guidelines, and emergency legislation has since been enacted, to provide suspects who are detained by the police with the right to
	“a private consultation with a solicitor”.
	That can be either before questioning or at any stage during questioning. Moreover, experience has shown that it is often more expensive to administer means-testing than to operate it. Cutting out legal aid in police stations will lead to false economy, not least because the courts will be clogged up with unmeritorious or unprepared cases, or proceedings without a solicitor present will be open to legal challenge.
	Early advice in a police station may save many social and economic costs, most of which must be picked up by other public services. Moreover, who will ask what someone’s earnings are, or how much their mortgage is? Those questions will have to be asked in extremely stressful situations. Will the Minister explain how the proposals will work without the whole process becoming extremely unwieldy?
	Furthermore, will the Minister explain why such a provision is in the Bill when I and colleagues received assurances that there was no intention of the clause ever coming into effect? If the Government have no intention of using the power, why leave it in the Bill? The Minister has effectively asked us to sign a blank cheque, but assured us that he will never have to cash it. Much as I trust the Minister, that is no way to propose or to implement new legislation, because it leaves pointless regulation in statute, which because of assurances from Ministers might never have been properly scrutinised. That is a bad precedent, and a dangerous one, which should not allowed to continue.

Yvonne Fovargue: I rise to speak to new clause 17, tabled in my name. It is well known that many problems in social welfare law are interconnected and that clients invariably approach agencies with clusters of problems, which is why the social welfare law cluster of housing, benefit, debt and employment was introduced in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, all MPs have seen constituents who arrive with carrier bags of unopened mail from various agencies. It is impossible to deal with one issue—for example, electricity disconnection—without dealing with problems such as tax credit underpayment and illegal deduction of wages. It is the natural state of affairs that one problem leads to another, and the merit of not-for-profit agencies dealing with that cluster is the availability of specialisms in a one-stop shop, and the ability to drill down to the root cause of the issue, which may be wrongful refusal of benefits or unfair dismissal leading to debt issues and potential homelessness.
	My new clause would allow agencies to deal with all the issues. They would not have to take a piecemeal approach, but could make difficult decisions on which issues are legally aidable and which are not, so that the individual would not be left to struggle with the complex non-legally aidable issues alone.
	Make no mistake; the issues that the Government wish to remove from scope are complex. The welfare benefits that the Government wish to remove from scope completely have 20 volumes of guidance, thousands of pages of case law, and thousands of statutory
	instruments, clauses and schedules. The Child Poverty Action Group’s handbook on welfare benefits and tax credits alone has 1,600 pages. In 2010, the Department for Work and Pensions issued 8,690 pages of advice to decision makers. That advice is not specialist. Can people rely on help from Jobcentre Plus or the Benefits Agency, the agencies that turned down their original claim? I do not think so.
	The Bill is being enacted at precisely the same time as the introduction of universal credit, which will affect 19 million individual claimants and 8 million households. I remember the change from supplementary benefit to income support. The number of people who needed advice rocketed, and many important cases were appealed by advice agencies, which had far-reaching consequences for many people, not just individual claimants. That is being denied in the Bill.
	In 2010, under the current system, there were 160,000 appeals, more than half of which were decided in favour of the claimant. To remove support from individuals who have been wrongly and unlawfully denied their benefit—in more than half of cases that was indeed the decision—and to deal with the rent arrears caused by that denial of benefit at the point of eviction, is perverse in the extreme.
	Early intervention and an holistic approach save money. Even the Minister admitted that early advice may reduce costs further down the road, but he chose to save £1 now at the cost, according to research from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, of £8.80 for every benefit case, £7.13 for every employment case, £2.98 for every debt case and £2.34 for every housing case. This is blinkered short-termism at its most extreme.
	I would like to give a couple of examples of linked problems where dealing with just the issue that remains in scope will be counter productive. A client had multiple priority and non-priority debts, including rent arrears, and was facing the threat of possession proceedings. She had prioritised credit card repayments due to pressure applied by her bank and debt collection agencies, and had fallen behind with her rent. She suffered mental health problems, and her teenage daughter was becoming ill because of the stress facing her mother. She was working and studying to improve her situation, but had lost benefits and was appealing that, with help. Under the Government’s proposals, there would be no help with that appeal. The only help available would be to deal with the immediate repossession issue. The credit card and other debts would not be dealt with and I surmise that it is extremely likely that that client would return in exactly the same position, or worse, at a later date.
	A constituent had been dismissed from employment and was being assisted with an unfair dismissal claim. Stress was making them ill and unable to work, and there was also an appeal against benefit sanctions for leaving their job. Due to the lack of income, the bills were mounting up and mortgage arrears were accruing. Under the new proposals the client would have to wait until they were in imminent danger of losing their home, and that would be the only issue within the scope of the scheme. If ever there were examples of false economy, surely those are such.
	The most vulnerable will bear the brunt of the cuts. The Legal Services Commission’s figures show that 62% of those affected by removal of welfare benefits from scope will be those with disabilities. Indeed, there is concern about whether agencies will be able to provide advice even to those fortunate individuals who still qualify for legal aid. The cuts to social welfare law disproportionately affect not-for-profit advice agencies with 77% of the funding withdrawn going from those agencies. Some 54% of citizens advice bureaux and more than 70% of law centres believe that they will not exist after 2013 if this Bill becomes law. There is no clear plan or strategy for the sector, just death by a thousand cuts.
	Wigan metropolitan borough council currently has 3,080 cases funded by legal aid, but 2,342 will go out of scope if the Bill is enacted. At a rough estimate of 300 cases per caseworker, resources will drop from 10 specialists to help my constituents to 2. Their ability to deal with even the severely curtailed legal aid cases will be massively impacted, let alone their ability to deal with linked issues. Will the Minister say what cross-Departmental plans are in place to deal with the destabilisation of the not-for-profit advice sector, and how will linked issues, which are often the root cause of an immediate threat of eviction, be dealt with in future?
	I want to address briefly the issue of whether those who qualify will be able to navigate the system and reach the help they need and not fall at the first barrier—the telephone gateway. In the all-too-inadequate time allowed in Committee, when the agencies presented their evidence, they all stated that the telephone gateway will be yet another barrier and will deny some clients access to the services they need. Indeed, Steve Hynes, director of the Legal Action Group, commented on research by that group—my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith referred to it. He said:
	“if you want a legal system that people do not use, deliver it through telephone advice because the people who pass the means test tend to be the ones who do not have telephones”
	In my experience, individuals with a number of problems often cannot focus on the most serious issue for many reasons. It often takes a considerable amount of time and experience to untangle the knotted ball of problems into single strands, and then to decide which is the most immediate and serious. For example, I saw a client who was most upset because, for the first time, she could not pay Provident. She was really upset that when it came to collecting the debt, her neighbour would know that she had problems and could not pay. Eventually, she let me examine all the other documents that she had, and it was apparent that she had been paying the company at the expense of her rent and was in danger of eviction. To tease that information out over the telephone without sight of the documents that she eventually handed over would be almost impossible, and I believe that that client would have been told her issue was not legally aidable and sent away still prioritising the wrong debt and facing eviction.
	I urge the Government at least to pilot the telephone gateway and to listen to the concerns of the advice providers, who are, after all, the experts in the field. In fact, in the rather protracted debate on Monday, which did not allow us to reach the removal from scope of the
	majority of social welfare law, the Government were at pains to assure us that they were listening and had listened to all the respondents to the consultation, which had one of the largest numbers of respondents that we have ever seen—over 3,000. In that case, why were the 93% of agencies and individuals who responded, disagreeing with the Government’s proposals to remove these areas from scope, not heeded? They certainly do not feel their views were valued or that any coherent and valid response was received, apart from on short-term money saving, which, as has been pointed out, will lead to many increased costs later on.
	The new clause would at least mitigate the untenable situation of agencies being funded to deal with only one issue when they know that the root cause of the problem still remains, and it would put them back, in some small way, to being able to deal with the individual as an individual with a group of issues and problems, thus preventing the inevitable recurrence. I urge hon. Members to support the new clause.

Tom Brake: I rise to speak principally about new clause 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
	Before I do so, I should like to comment on amendment 116. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) made a cogent case for deleting clause 12. The Minister rightly said in Committee that
	“the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and the costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]
	My hon. Friend underlined that that had been the experience in Scotland. It is therefore clear what the Government’s response should be. For the sake of clarity and succinctness, the Bill could appropriately lose clause 12.

Karl Turner: I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment that would effectively get rid of the idea of means-testing in police stations. I agree that this is an issue of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. I am surprised, however, that when he sat on the Bill Committee he did absolutely nothing about it when he could have supported my amendment or that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not sure whether he is saying that I should not be raising the point now, but that is what I am doing.

Karl Turner: rose —

Tom Brake: I am not going to give way. The point has been raised, it is on the record. I am sure that the Minister will have heard it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will speak about this in relation to amendment 148, and I am sure that he will echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield about the telephone gateway.

Lyn Brown: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Family Law Bar Association and the Lord Chief Justice have all indicated that the changes made by the Government in this Bill will curtail access to the legal system but that the projected savings will not be obtained. Given that the right hon. Gentleman sat on the Bill Committee, perhaps he can tell me why all those organisations are wrong but the Government and the Bill he supports are correct.

Tom Brake: In a situation where funding is going to be withdrawn from organisations, it is not surprising that their response is that they do not favour it. The Government need to monitor very carefully some of the concerns have been raised about the impact of withdrawing legal aid, and we have already had assurances that that will be the case.

Elizabeth Truss: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Tom Brake: I will give way one last time and then move on to new clause 17.

Elizabeth Truss: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of those organisations have an interest in pushing up the legal aid bill because they are its main recipients?

Tom Brake: The hon. Lady makes a point that is worth considering. Clearly, certain organisations are financial beneficiaries of some of the funding, but I do not want to throw out all the concerns that have been raised because, equally, there are legitimate concerns that the Government need to monitor very carefully.
	I turn to new clause 17. I had hoped that during the debate on Monday we would reach the group of amendments on social welfare in which my amendment 149 on complex welfare benefits was listed. Also in the group was amendment 131, which sought to ensure that advice on housing repossessions was available sooner. I regret that we did not reach that group, as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who is chairman of the all-party group on Citizens Advice. However, new clause 17 touches on many aspects of what was included in amendment 149. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Makerfield has put the matter up for debate today because it provides an opportunity to discuss some of the points that would have been raised on amendment 149. Her definition in trying to ensure that legal aid is extended to complex cases is
	“that the individual has complex, interconnected needs”
	and that
	“not all of those…legal services would otherwise be available to the individual”.
	It is reasonable to speculate that many, or most, individuals with complex and interconnected needs will also have welfare benefit issues that will often also be complex. Under the Government’s proposals, welfare benefit cases, complex or otherwise, are excluded from the scope of legal aid.
	I acknowledge that the scope of the hon. Lady’s new clause is slightly different from what was proposed in amendment 149. However, if it had been restricted to individuals with complex and interconnected needs who
	require legal help with complex welfare benefit issues, I suspect that we would have been discussing exactly the same area of legal aid, because virtually every individual who has a benefit advice problem involving issues of legal complexity, significant evidential hurdles or daunting adjudication processes will have complex and interconnected needs. According to Citizens Advice, that more targeted approach would help to achieve a compromise position whereby more complex cases can be covered by the legal help system. When we asked Citizens Advice what it would identify as a single priority as regards what the Government should change, that is what it proposed.
	Citizens Advice has calculated the cost impact of its proposal. It says that the current welfare benefits advice spend is £25 million on just under 140,000 cases, and that restricting it to complex welfare benefit cases covering only reviews and appeals, which applies to two thirds of the current welfare benefit cases, would cost £16.5 million and help around 100,000 people. The cost could fall further if, as the Government and all hon. Members intend in practice, decision making first time round is improved and becomes much more effective. The CAB calculation is that if we were to improve first-time decision making by 30%, the costs of that provision could fall to £12 million.

Alan Beith: Is it not absurd that the Government should be scrabbling around for money to meet the costs of bad decision making and bad communication between Departments and those who are affected by their decisions? Ought not the Government’s priority be to ensure that those Departments change those processes, which they are more likely to do if they have an incentive, which is provided by the fact that their budget will meet some of the costs if they do not do so?

Tom Brake: There has not been much consensus in the Chamber, but I suspect that there is broad agreement on that point.

Andy Slaughter: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Liberty briefing paper states that the
	“Community Links advice service records that…73% of the benefits related cases handled by their staff arose as a result of errors on the part of the Department of Work and Pensions.”
	The Opposition agree with him, but we are where we are, and particularly at this time of change, we need certainty that those people will be properly represented. I think he said that he would not support new clause 17, but will he support amendment 116 and later, the new clause in his name or the new clause relating to the Dowlers, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? He has given assurances outside the House and said that he supports those positions, but he now seems to be resiling from them. Will he and his hon. Friends support those measures? Will he answer that question now?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the tradition of his speeches—lengthy. He should perhaps have waited until I had finished my comments before jumping to any conclusions.

Karl Turner: Will you be supporting it?

Tom Brake: We have rightly highlighted issues such as criminal negligence in earlier debates, and this afternoon we will focus on libel and slander cases that affect a relatively small number of people.

Karl Turner: Give us a clue Tom!

Nigel Evans: Order.

Tom Brake: As I stated earlier, the simple change in new clause 12 affects a very large number of people—up to 100,000. As I mentioned in the debate yesterday, it is incumbent on Members who propose alternatives that mean the Government will spend more when they are trying to address a very large deficit to identify where funding for such proposals would come from. I hope we have an opportunity to debate amendment 144 this afternoon, because that would more than adequately cover the expenditure that the amendments would necessitate.

Alison Seabeck: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the need for Government Departments to look at how they interconnect. From my constituency case load experience, a significant number of those 100,000 people are likely to develop mental health problems as a result of the predicament in which they find themselves. Surely money invested in provision for them would save the Department of Health quite considerable moneys. Is he confident that coalition Front Benchers have been talking to each other to do that sort of cost-benefit analysis?

Tom Brake: The hon. Lady’s intervention is a fair one. I have raised the knock-on impact on other Departments directly with the Minister. I have received assurances that, for instance, the Department of Health has analysed the impact and does not see significant knock-on costs. That is the assurance that I have been given.
	I conclude by urging the Minister to make a clear statement that the Government believe that the issue of complex welfare benefits is still up for negotiation, and that they will make progress on it in the Lords. If he cannot give such an assurance, and if the hon. Member for Makerfield presses new clause 17 to a Division, it is with regret that I would feel obliged to support it. I await the Minister’s response with interest.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have never been a tribal politician, and I understand the dynamics of the House, but I am very disappointed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), had nothing to say on this issue in Committee. Worse still, an amendment that would have dealt with clause 12 was pressed to a Division, but they declined to vote for it. Indeed, they voted against it. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) came to the debate in the House on Monday and said that he was interested in dealing with the immigration law aspect in the Bill, but again, his colleagues said nothing about that in those lengthy Committee proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would pursue the matter. The modus operandi of the Liberal Democrat party is to sit on a Committee, do nothing, and then come back on Report and pretend they have done a hell of a lot. I am rather disappointed
	in the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington in that regard. I have never been a tribal politician, but when I see this kind of behaviour, it makes me a bit sick.

Andy Slaughter: I have three headlines from The Guardian, which are like a tableau. From September, we have “Liberal Democrats urged to defy plans to cut legal aid”; from October, we have “Lib Dem MPs rebel against proposals to cut legal aid funding”; and from yesterday, we have “Lib Dems have their cake and eat it”. That last article features a lovely picture of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). They rebel, and at the last moment, they do not.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have made my point, so I will move on to the substance of this important debate, because others wish to speak.
	I support the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on new clause 17, the amendments tabled by the Official Opposition, and new clause 43 and amendment 162, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards).
	However, I am against clause 12, which threatens through secondary legislation to limit advice and assistance at police stations. I shall not speak for long, but it is important to deal with one or two aspects of the measure. Clause 12 could thwart the fundamental right to legal advice when held in police custody, which frankly is a time when individuals are at their most vulnerable. That the Government did not consult on that measure has been widely criticised by many, and not simply those who allegedly want to raise money. The Lord Chief Justice is not dependent on legal aid, as far as I am aware.
	I spoke in Committee of the importance of people having legal advice and assistance when they are detained in police stations. No consultation was held, but the measure was pushed through. Clause 12(3) is particularly worrying, because it would allow the Lord Chancellor to introduce regulations requiring the director to apply means-testing provisions if he or she considers them appropriate. It is well known that advice and assistance on arrest are not currently means-tested. The introduction of that in a police station is utterly inappropriate. What is more, as the Bar Council has pointed out, experience over the years shows that errors and abuses at police stations are responsible for very many miscarriages of justice, which cost not only lives, but finances.
	Amendments 90, 104 and 125, which are in my name, would ensure that as a matter of course advice and assistance would continue to be made available for individuals held in police custody—they would not be subject to any means or merits testing. Amendment 104 would remove the word “station”, and amendment 125 would remove the need for a determination by a director. Furthermore, amendment 90 would remove subsection (9) and state in its place that
	“Sections 20 and 26(2) do not apply”.
	The first point clarifies that means-testing cannot be introduced at police custody. Negating the application of clause 26(2) would ensure that the Lord Chancellor was unable to replace advice in person at police stations with
	“services to be provided by telephone or by other electronic means.”
	Clause 12 has a grave potential to destabilise access to justice for some of the most vulnerable in our society. As Liberty has pointed out:
	“Justice requires that, as a bare minimum, all individuals taken into police custody have access to legal advice and representation when facing criminal allegations with the potential loss of liberty, disruption and damage to reputation they entail.”
	As anyone who has practised criminal law will know, the first couple of hours in custody can be crucial in determining whether a case goes further, even on to an interview. Most people, when facing a police interview, particularly for the first time, are unable to think clearly and may not be cognisant of their best interests. As I said in Committee, at the very least the initial interview at the police station should proceed on the basis that the solicitor will be paid for the first couple of hours. It seems that the Government were unwilling to listen to that concession.

Keith Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point which I support completely. However, there is another aspect to this matter. The solicitors who are available to give such legal advice usually have great expertise in the criminal law. If legal aid is removed and there is means-testing, the wrong type of professionals—those who do not have the expertise—will be available to give advice.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I note from my own experience that such people are highly qualified for the work that they do. If two hours are spent with a solicitor who is well-versed in procedure, a lot of work can be done and people’s reputations can be saved. It is vital that we do everything we can to retain that provision. I am not doing any special pleading for lawyers. I appreciate that there should be paring back in some areas of legal aid, but this is a fundamental matter of access to justice and it is important that the Government listen.
	It is worth noting Liberty’s point that attempting to introduce means-testing when an individual is in police custody is likely to be “unworkable” because it
	“requires documentary verification of financial resources”,
	which an individual in custody is clearly unlikely to have on his or her person. That would again result in inevitable delay and the wasting of resources.

Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. Is he aware of any representations on this matter from police sources? They must be worried that suspects will be held in police stations for an excessive time while documentation is sought and possibly not found. They will then be forced either to release the suspect or to take them to court without access to a lawyer, which a lot of police forces would not be willing to do.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I will say a few words in a minute about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is important in this regard. Clause 12 will run a coach and horses through it.
	I do not believe that clause 12 is well thought through. What is worse, it undermines one of the core principles of our justice system: fair and equal access to justice for all citizens. I therefore cannot support it.
	The Law Society’s head of legal aid, Richard Miller has said:
	“This is not only an assault on the rights of citizens, it is also a logistical nightmare to operate in practice.”
	He has said that substantial hidden costs undoubtedly will follow and that it will be “simply unworkable”. Max Hill, the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said that the Government were meddling with a “fundamental right”:
	“To contemplate some sort of qualitative testing to decide when and if a member of the public should receive legal representation and advice…is deeply alarming.”
	As I said, I will not speak at length, but I will say a word about miscarriages of justice. We know of a spate of miscarriages of justice that occurred in the ’70s and ’80s, and there was an official inquiry into several of them. The Birmingham Six were jailed for life in 1975 for pub bombings. The convictions were overturned in 1991 after evidence emerged of the police’s fabrication of confessions and suppression of evidence. The Guildford Four were convicted of a bombing in the same year. The conviction was secured on confessions that were obtained through coercion, violence and threats by the police. They were acquitted in 1989.

Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman is making a strong point. However, the Guildford Four were actually the first people to be arrested and convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which meant that they were specifically denied access to anyone at the time of arrest. That was not the case with the Birmingham Six, who instead were abused in the police station.

Elfyn Llwyd: I stand corrected. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has corrected the record for me. However, my point still stands.
	Stefan Kiszko wrongly served 16 years for rape and murder after being arrested in 1975. He confessed to the police after three days of questioning without a lawyer. That and several similar cases gave rise to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which gave a detained person the protection of proper legal advice. It also, crucially, gave protection to the police, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Clause 12 will undoubtedly drive a coach and horses through the 1984 Act and I believe that it should be resisted at all costs.

Stephen Lloyd: I rise to speak on new clause 17. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who was the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Citizens Advice before I took over. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said. Originally we wanted to speak to amendment 149 under the social welfare grouping on Monday night and it was disappointing that that group was not reached. Consequently, although I do not agree entirely with new clause 17, I am minded to support it, particularly given how it relates to Citizens Advice.
	Some of my points have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I reiterate that at a time when we are making radical
	changes to the welfare system by introducing universal credit, replacing disability living allowance and making substantial changes to employment and support allowance, it is unwise to withdraw the support for people who are challenging bad decisions. As we all know, in the process of reform, mistakes can be made. As I am sure the House is aware, the introduction of ESA has generated a significant volume of appeals and 39% of ESA appeals are still being found in favour of the appellant. The position of the Department for Work and Pensions is that welfare advice should not be funded on issues of benefit entitlement because advice is available through DWP agencies such as Jobcentre Plus. However, I strongly believe that the solution is not to take welfare advice out of the scope of legal aid altogether, but to make appropriate distinctions over whether problems involve issues of complexity.

Kate Green: I support a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that it is inappropriate for people to rely only on advice from Jobcentre Plus when they may need advice because they wish to challenge the decisions of that agency?

Stephen Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Lady. It is good to see her taking part in the debate, because she sat on the Work and Pensions Committee with me before she was promoted to her very high place. She makes a strong point that emphasises that the solution is not to take welfare advice out of the scope of legal aid altogether, but to make appropriate distinctions, as it states in new clause 17, over whether problems involve issues of complexity. The issues that end up before tribunals are often extremely complex and involve the interpretation of statutes and case law precedent. It is wholly unrealistic to expect somebody without specialist knowledge to undertake that. Legal advice is essential, in my view, to the fairness of the appeals process.
	By definition, the people who would be denied help are vulnerable and less able to help themselves. Ill and disabled people make up 58% of those who will be affected by removing legal aid from welfare advice. Reviews and appeals should be treated separately from more routine matters and it should be noted that work on appeals and reviews accounts for only 66% of current welfare benefit casework undertaken under Legal Services Commission contracts. Consequently, restricting legal aid to reviews and appeals would reduce the welfare legal aid bill by 40% from £16.5 million, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said. That is a significant cut, as I am sure the Minister is aware, and it would help the 100,000 people involved—and they would be the most vulnerable 100,000.
	I support new clause 17 and unless I hear a clear message from the Minister on the points that we—and especially my right hon. Friend—have made, I shall support it in the Lobby.

Valerie Vaz: I declare an interest as—or confess that I am—a lawyer. I was a solicitor for more than 20 years, and I worked for the Treasury Solicitor’s Department and the Ministry of Justice, as well as in private practice and the public sector, on behalf of local authorities.
	I am concerned by the removal of welfare benefit, education and debt recovery cases from the scope of legal aid. Those are the kind of bread and butter issues that used to be dealt with under the green form scheme. I wish to reassure hon. Members who are concerned that lawyers are in it for the money that we often used to give advice for nothing to people who came through our doors: we went over the time limit but never claimed for it. So we can knock on the head the idea that lawyers are only in it for the money.
	When I acted for local authorities in possession cases, we found that tenants who were going to be evicted were better informed when they had advice from the duty solicitor. I sat as a deputy district judge and it was much better when the people who appeared before me were not litigants in person. If they have a lawyer to give them proper advice, less court time is taken up.

Keith Vaz: One of the problems with the reduction in legal aid is that a whole generation of lawyers with expertise in welfare, immigration and education law will disappear. The only type of lawyers churned out of law colleges will be those who can do corporate litigation.

Valerie Vaz: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has taught me more than he will ever realise. He has in common with the Lord Chancellor the fact that they both attended the very eminent lawyers’ college, Gonville and Caius.
	I saw cases from both sides—tenants and local authorities—and it was very important for people to be able to access legal advice. More and more parents are now resorting to the use of lawyers to get their children into the school of their choice. If they can afford it, that is fine, but what if they just want basic advice on how to attend an appeal? That is very important for parents who cannot afford lawyers.
	By happy coincidence, I acted in Hammersmith and Fulham v. Monk, a case that went straight to the House of Lords—at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) was a very good deputy leader of the council—because it involved an important question of principle. Could one of two joint tenants sever the tenancy by serving a notice to quit on the landlord? The result of that case was that we could rehouse women who were victims of domestic violence and retain the property involved. Mr Monk was legally aided, and it was important that that principle was decided by the House of Lords.
	Another local authority wanted to settle the same question, and legal aid was available in that case too, but I took the decision that it would be sufficient for only one case to go forward. So lawyers do put brakes on extensive costs. I have had the privilege of litigating on behalf of the Government and, as the House will know, we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. Judges can keep account of costs and they do not allow lawyers to go on and on and run up costs, but they also have to take their time when a litigant in person is appearing before them. There are also other ways to reduce costs, such as the Littlewoods clause. If someone has received legal aid and then come into money—by winning the pools, for example—the Government can claw back the money. Judges can also make a wasted costs order against lawyers who waste time in court.
	I am a member of the Health Committee and we investigated clinical negligence, which now costs the state £800 million, whereas if it had stayed within the scope of legal aid it would cost only £17 million. That is a huge difference, and I wish the Government would think again. Even the NHS Litigation Authority said:
	“The reduction in availability of public funding for clinical negligence claims and the corresponding rise in Conditional Fee Arrangements, backed by After the Event insurance, has also contributed very significantly to the cost of litigation”.
	Who can get legal aid? That is a very important question and I have three examples of why that is so. The LSC gave legal aid to the Nepalese Gurkhas, and we know how that turned out. It was a very important principle concerning people who had fought and died for their country. It gave legal aid to Sean Hodgson, who was wrongly convicted and was freed after 27 years. It also gave legal aid to Colin Ross, a cancer patient who won a battle in the High Court for life-saving drug treatment that could give him an extra three years of life. Mr Ross received legal aid to challenge a decision by West Sussex PCT to refuse funding for the drug he wanted.
	In the recent case of W v. M, S and an NHS primary care trust, Mr Justice Baker said:
	“Given the fundamental issues involved in cases involving the withdrawal of ANH”—
	artificial nutrition and hydration—
	“it is alarming to the court that public funding has not been available to members of the family to assist them in prosecuting their application. In the event, the applicant’s team has acted pro bono throughout the hearing and during much of the very extensive preparation.”
	That goes to the heart of what legal aid is all about. It is important to test legal principles. That is what judges are for, and it forms part of the checks and balances on the Executive. The late Lord Bingham called the rule of law
	“an ideal worth striving for”.
	The same sentiment applies to access to justice, so that we remain a United Kingdom. I urge the Government to think again about these divisive proposals.

David Ward: We have heard some naughty stuff from the Opposition. I remember serving on a Public Bill Committee shortly after I arrived in the House. Now, I am a lad from Bradford, and we have this strange practice in Bradford: when we agree with something we vote for it, and when we disagree with something we vote against it. I went into Committee, and of course people soon told me, “That’s not the way you do it. If something comes from the other side, even if it’s a good amendment, you simply don’t accept it.” [Hon. Members: “Name them!”] I understand that that was common practice in the previous Parliament. [Hon. Members: “Name them!”] That is a tad nosey.
	I am not a lawyer, but many, many people have come through my constituency door who desperately need, but cannot afford, a lawyer. I have serious concerns about these proposals, and I am very much in favour of new clause 17. Another thing that I quickly learnt when I came here was that there were unintended consequences. I had never heard of those before, to be honest, but I soon realised that when something goes wrong a bit later in the day—six months or a year later, perhaps—we
	say, “Well, it was unintended consequences.” That is basically a euphemism for, “We got it wrong.” In Bradford, we say, “We made a bad decision.”
	Often we make bad decisions—that is the way of it—but, when we analyse why we are making bad decisions, often we find that it is because we failed to gather information or consult. Well, we have consulted on this, and we have a body of evidence. I thank the Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association for the information that it provided for us—no doubt other groups have provided information for other Members—and I am also grateful for the information from Citizens Advice. In particular, there are the case studies. Let us consider the consequences of the proposals. We can all look into the future and guess, but there are examples—case studies—of people receiving legal aid who simply will not receive it if these proposals go through. I am speaking for five or 10 minutes and could give hon. Members a couple of examples, but if I spoke for 20 minutes I could give three or four more; if I spoke for an hour I could give a dozen, and if I stayed here for a week I could give hundreds of case studies, one after another, of people who would be badly affected by the proposals.
	We have received valuable information from the Law Society about the fictitious nature of the savings. They just will not be generated. In fact the proposals will probably add to costs in many ways. I am seriously concerned that, given the body of evidence available, including the huge number of case studies and examples from our constituencies, the consequences will not be unintended. These will be intended consequences; what will happen will be what the Government intended to happen. Various suggestions have been made of alternative measures that people could take—for example, they could represent themselves, or seek support from advice services—but the overall intention is that people will just go away. They will not be supported—but they will not go away, will they? Their problems will remain, and will probably get more serious, and indeed more costly.

Yvonne Fovargue: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is worth reminding the House of the costs of taking a case under the legal aid scheme? A welfare benefits case costs £164. That is what the agency gets for dealing with it. It is £200 for a debt case and £174 for a housing case—and I believe that those costs have been cut by 10% from 1 August. These are not high-cost cases; this is extremely good value for money.

David Ward: Absolutely. I actually deleted some of my speech because of the figures that the hon. Lady quoted earlier, which highlighted my point about the fictitious nature of the cuts, the costs and the value for money to the public purse.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Let us consider the parallel of immigration law. If individuals do not have access to a lawyer to deal with an immigration case they go to an immigration adviser, who might end up, over a period, getting a great deal of money out of them, often almost by coercion, in return for very bad advice that often results in disaster. The legal aid process means that people get qualified lawyers giving sensible intelligent advice, which will save us all a great deal more money in the future.

David Ward: Absolutely. I have come across some pretty scary cases involving several hundred pounds of single-sheet letters from lawyers, but I have had no joy in trying to bring them to the attention of the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman is right. The present system represents good value for money to the public purse.

Lyn Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. Community Links, an amazing voluntary organisation in my constituency, provides welfare and benefit advice and is funded, in part, by legal aid. A 10% cut in its fees will jeopardise any remaining advice that it can provide, because it already subsidises the legal aid fees coming in. I presume that he has had the same experience in Bradford.

David Ward: Absolutely. We have talked about the evidence, but it is almost so overwhelming that we must begin to wonder what is behind this. What on earth is going on here?

Karl Turner: Come over!

David Ward: Hang on.
	An answer that I have been given is that this is all in the coalition agreement.

Karl Turner: Come over!

David Ward: Hang on.
	Occasionally I try to abide by the coalition agreement, but this is not in there. There is in the coalition agreement something about the deficit reduction, and I am up for that—we do desperately need to reduce it—but I am not convinced that this will contribute to that. It is a very dangerous thing if we are going to use deficit reduction as a justification for almost anything that we might do. We have to question what we are doing.

Karl Turner: rose—

David Ward: I need to bring my speech to an end. Others need to speak.
	One thing that the coalition agreement does say is that we should have a fundamental review of legal aid. I am up for that. Absolutely. Where is it? Why on earth are we taking these measures? The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is due to undertake a debt management review, and there are a series of other reviews looking at advice centres and the work that they do. We should do that first.

Karl Turner: rose—

David Ward: Oh, go on then.

Karl Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, and he is also speaking for many Opposition Members. Has he thought about crossing the Floor and joining us?

David Ward: I tell you what: I promise to do so once we have sorted out the mess you left us in. I shall come across then, because it will just be so much easier—

Nigel Evans: Order. The hon. Gentleman is using the word “you”, but as he knows, that refers to me. Could he please refrain from using that word?

David Ward: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Someone once told me that the world is divided into two groups of people. There are those who, when they see somebody walking down the street with a walking stick, believe in kicking the stick away because it will make that person stronger, and there are those who believe that if they kick away the stick, the person will just fall over. We are in grave danger of making some of those who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society fall over, and we will still have to be there to pick them up, at even greater cost to the public purse. It does not make sense; we should not do it.

Karl Turner: I of course support new clause 17, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). However, I will restrict my remarks to amendment 116, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and those of many Lib Dem Members, for what it is worth. Clause 12 will effectively provide for means-testing in the police station. I have many concerns about that from my experience as a lawyer. I have practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years—indeed, my wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor—and shortly before the general election I joined my local chambers as a pupil barrister. I therefore come to this debate with some experience as a criminal lawyer.
	I want briefly to talk about the practical difficulties of means-testing people in a police station. Let us imagine the situation—it happened last weekend, in fact. My wife’s pager goes off. It is three o’clock in the morning. She spends the next six hours in Priory Road police station, representing a young man who is suspected of very serious criminal offences. She is not in a position to go through the paperwork or CDS—criminal defence service—application form to make a claim for legal aid in that situation. What the client wants to know is: “How long am I going to be here?”, “What are the consequences if I’m charged?”, “What will happen if I end up appearing before the magistrates court?” and, at the end of the day, “What will happen if I am convicted?” The question is not: “How much do you earn?” That is the last thing that the client will want to put their mind to. Indeed, the solicitor in attendance would not be acting in a proper way if they asked that question. I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.
	I have spoken briefly about the practicalities, but it is also important to spend a moment thinking about what used to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the green form. Yesterday evening I spoke to a solicitor who has been around long enough to remember the days of the green form. He told me that he used to send his secretary, or anybody in the office who was available. Things have changed for the better. People need to be qualified; they have to attend courses. I remember doing them: I did not like it very much at the time, but I went along, I paid the money—or the people who employed
	me did—I did the homework, I passed the examinations and I carried on with my CPD, or continuing professional development.
	I did that because when I am called to a police station as a solicitor, it is important that I know what consent means in relation to an allegation of rape. It is important that I can explain what defences might be available. It is important that I have enough knowledge and experience to be able to say to a client, “It’s in your best interests to speak to the police,” or, “In my professional opinion, it’s not in your best interests to speak to the police.” We must not think that everybody who attends at a police station is guilty of a terrible crime. In my experience the contrary is true. The vast majority of detainees in police stations are either not charged, released on bail pending further inquiries, or, if they are charged, acquitted. A minority of cases make their way to the courtroom and end in a conviction. Everybody is entitled to access to a solicitor. It is a fundamental right, which, in my opinion, this Government are putting at risk.
	I should mention the situation before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Hon. Members have touched on it, but we had the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—great miscarriages of justice—and we learned from that. I think I am right in saying that the current Lord Chancellor was responsible for the 1984 Act, which was the right thing to introduce. Before PACE was introduced, people were making “confessions” that it later transpired were not proper confessions at all. It is important to remember that time. Miscarriages of justice cost the country an awful lot of money, but it is not just about money; it is about the effect on society when people can be convicted for something that they did not do and when they were nowhere near the scene. That seems appalling and very short-sighted.
	Another concern for me is adverse inferences from silence. I have not looked at case law recently, but eminent barristers on both sides of the House will be familiar with it. The most recent case I am aware of is Murray v. UK. If my memory serves me correctly—I admit I have read only a summary of the court case—it says that a jury could not be invited to hold an inference against a person’s silence in the police station if that person was prevented from seeking legal advice in that police station. I believe that this is one of the unintended consequences that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about.
	Let us imagine this scenario. A solicitor turns up at a police station to see a client and quickly establishes that the client has enough money to be able to pay for his own legal advice. Acting quite properly in the best interests of my client, I would say, “Keep your mouth shut.” I would tell the client to say absolutely nothing. I cannot afford to hang around because I am not getting paid and I am not sure that I will be paid even if the client makes an undertaking and assures me that the money will be brought to the firm of solicitors for which I work at some point in the future. I would probably be thinking, “I’m going. I’m not going to get any disclosure from the police, but in the best interests of my client I am going to tell him or her to keep their mouth firmly shut.” That provides an opportunity at some point in the future for that suspect effectively to make up their defence. It removes a valuable tool for the judiciary and the jury to decide whether they think an inference should be made from the client’s silence at the police station. This is a massive mistake.
	This Government have not consulted on this proposal in clause 12. From a sedentary intervention I told the Minister earlier that it was probably written on the back of a fag packet. With respect, I think it probably was. There has been absolutely no consultation. I have spoken to many solicitors who have said that this proposal just came out of the blue. Nobody expected this. The Law Society was shocked. I have had meetings with the Bar Council and the Law Society, and they have told me that they did not expect this.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has much experience in this area. I declare an interest as a duty solicitor still on the books for doing my duty at police stations. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the practical application of a clause that I understand the Government have indicated they have no immediate plans to implement. Will he expand on the details about the interests of justice test? Does he agree that there is specific interest of justice in respect of the advice and assistance at the police station given to a detainee who has already lost his liberty? The issue of stating his case is different from what it would be in court, and he might need specific, independent advice.

Karl Turner: I would need more time to think about that, but I am tempted to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s second point. On the first point, however, am I supposed to believe the Minister when he says, “Well, we want this on the face of the Bill, but we are never going to use it.”? That is absolute, utter and complete nonsense. I asked my researcher to make inquiries with the Library and find out on how many occasions the previous Government—of whom I am entirely proud—may have used this provision as a tool. My researcher came back to me to say, “As far as the Library is concerned, there is no example whatever of a Government building provisions into an Act of Parliament that they never have any intention of using.” It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that that is the case.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Karl Turner: I will not give way, because many other Members are keen to speak in this important debate.
	It worries me that the Government are ignoring expert advice on a proposal which, in my view, would remove a fundamental right from citizens, and that there has been no consultation whatsoever. The Bar Council and the Law Society have expressed honest concerns about the legislation, but the Government have completely ignored them, which is outrageous. Many members of the Bill Committee took that point on board, but in an article one of them, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), described the Bar Council as bewigged Scargillites. I assure the House that my colleagues at the Bar are far from being bewigged Scargillites.
	During my time as a criminal lawyer I defended the last Government on many occasions, and it is nonsense to say that that Labour Government were not generous to publicly funded lawyers. However, I believe that a fixed fee in a police station is now about a hundred and
	sixty quid; it is certainly less than two hundred. If I were still a solicitor and the pager went off, I would have to go to the police station with no idea of what awaited me. I would hope to be there for five minutes, but I might well be there for six, seven, eight, nine or 10 hours, or even longer.
	It is utterly disgraceful to suggest that publicly funded lawyers are earning vast sums. As of 3 October this year, solicitors are not paid committal fees in a magistrates court. That effectively means that if a case is committed to the Crown Court, whether under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 or because the defendant elects for it, the solicitor will not be paid for the work. So when will solicitors be paid? They will not be paid in a police station, and they will not be paid if the case is committed to the Crown Court.
	Is not the Government’s plan simply to squeeze solicitors out of the game? Clause 12 suggests that they expect them to work for free. Make no mistake: that is what it is all about. It is true that big solicitors’ firms with mixed practices dealing with other areas of law involving private payment may well survive, retain a criminal franchise and employ people to do a job, but I can tell the House that it is not cheap to employ an accredited police station representative. I do not know for sure because I have never been one, but I would guess that their salaries are between 25 and 30 grand a year. A newly qualified solicitor in my area, Hull, probably earns between £22,000 and £26,000. Moreover, the courses that solicitors must attend in order to become qualified to give legal advice in a police station cost many hundreds of pounds, and it is not a one-off cost. When people become qualified to give such advice, that is not the end of the matter, because they are required to engage in CPD as they continue in practice.
	It is unbelievably short-sighted of this disgraceful Tory-led coalition Government, disgracefully propped up by the Liberal Democrats, to suggest that this might be a good idea. [Interruption.] I am not sure what the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), said from a sedentary position, but I am sure it was not worth hearing. The reality is—make no mistake about it—that this will cost an awful lot more money in the long run. I am glad I have put that on the record because at some point in the future I will be saying it again to those on the Treasury Bench.

Ben Gummer: It is always a considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). His speech was passionate, well informed and full of some good sense. I was unable to support a similar amendment of his in Committee, because on one rather important issue I disagree with him. I do not think it is wrong in principle for a millionaire who has been convicted of murder to be charged for the legal defence they received at the police station. However, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that what is important is the point at which that charging happens.

Karl Turner: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, too. I mean that sincerely.
	I recall attending a police station to represent a doctor who had an NHS practice as well as a private practice. If he had said to me, “Listen, I’ll pay you,” I would not have continued to advise him in what was a
	very important case. When a solicitor turns up at a police station in such circumstances, they cannot be sure they will be paid. Even if the doctor had given me an absolute, cast-iron assurance that I would get that money, the firm of solicitors that employed me would not have allowed me to stay there. That is why I disagreed with the amendment of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) in Committee. He suggested that two hours should be free, and then there could be charging. I disagree; I think anybody in a police-station scenario should be entitled to free and independent legal advice.

Ben Gummer: At the risk of this turning into a mutual affection session, let me say that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and agree with the foundation of his argument, which is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was the most significant advance in criminal law in this country since the second world war and we must take into account the abuses that led to its introduction. On that basis, it is an important principle that there should be free and unmolested legal advice at the point of arrest for all people, no matter how much they are worth, so that no one need be worried about the quality of the advice they are getting.
	We could, however, debate whether it is appropriate to have retrospective charging for people of means who have subsequently been convicted.

David Burrowes: All Members want there to be proper access to justice for all, and informed legal advice that can address miscarriages of justice and uphold people’s basic human rights in police stations. Might those charges be best recovered at the point of conviction? That would not create risks in respect of access to justice. Also, in prosecutions by the Department for Work and Pensions and other agencies, applications are made that cover the costs for the whole of the investigation as well as the court costs.

Ben Gummer: I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior experience of such matters. There might be a mechanism under which retrospective charging would be possible. We could debate that, and Members on both sides of the House would make reasonable arguments. Given the phrasing of the provision currently under discussion however, such a debate is not possible now.
	I hope the Government will be able to provide assurances on another problem. In principle, I am against contingent legislation. I remember sitting up in the Public Gallery when I was very small, watching others in this Chamber discuss prevention of terrorism legislation. The then Opposition, headed by Neil Kinnock, were arguing passionately against that legislation for precisely the reason I am discussing. I do not think that they were right in that circumstance, but I find troubling the idea of putting contingent legislation on the statute book that could be re-enacted by order later without reference to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Government will either flesh out their proposals for the retrospective charging of defendants should they be convicted or decide to approach this matter in a different way.

Lyn Brown: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could help us on the motivation of his Front-Bench team for making this clause contingent. Does the Minister need people to walk through the Lobby with him and they might otherwise not choose to do so?

Ben Gummer: The motivation of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is unimpeachable, as I have found from sitting behind them in the Public Bill Committee.

Elfyn Llwyd: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that form of legislation and he makes a valid point. A couple of minutes ago, he asked why a millionaire or multi-millionaire should not pay for legal advice and assistance. In my experience, the vast majority of very wealthy people have their own lawyers and in many cases they actually carry their number with them all the time.

Ben Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. However, a point of principle is involved here. I do not understand why people on low incomes in my constituency or that of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East should be subsidising the legal advice of those who can pay for it at a later date should they be convicted of a crime. We can have a debate about this. All I am saying is that we should have the debate now, perhaps with a new clause, or address it in another place in a different way.
	I move on to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Her expertise on social welfare law is probably unparalleled in this House and I very much value what she brought to this debate. However, I would remind her—I hope that she will not take this remiss—that at the last election she stood on a manifesto promising cuts in legal aid. Although the examples that she gave were pertinent, no recommendation has come from the Opposition Front-Bench team as to the alternatives they would introduce, either to make cuts elsewhere, which would otherwise be seen in her area of advice—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Ben Gummer: May I just finish my point? At the beginning—

Andy Slaughter: rose—

Ben Gummer: I will give way to the shadow Minister.

Andy Slaughter: I hope that we can make some progress in this debate now. This is not helping—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is laughing. I hope that he is not going back on his earlier promise that we would make progress today. Had the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) been here earlier, he would have heard me deal with that point, in terms and at length, in response to an intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee. Will he stop wasting time?

Ben Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is a little previous. Had he allowed me to continue my point, as I had asked, he would have heard me address exactly what he said. I did hear what he said, albeit outside the Chamber. Let me deal with this point about the Opposition. If they are to be credible, they have to make alternative proposals for cuts to legal aid, which they promised in their manifesto and have promised since, to this Chamber. A few months ago, during the Public Bill Committee, they clung to the proposals made by the Bar Council and the Law Society, until those proposals fell apart. They fell apart to the extent that the Bar Council and
	the Law Society have had to revise them in a resubmitted document provided earlier this week. That was the Opposition’s first cost-reduction plan and it was not one of their own making—it was made by others.
	Some £245 million-worth of amendments were tabled by the Opposition in the Public Bill Committee, along the lines of those proposed by the hon. Member for Makerfield, but with no suggestions as to where cuts might be made elsewhere. So we get to a point where there is a complete absence of the other side of policy from Her Majesty’s Opposition—it might provide some credibility to what they propose—until perhaps today, when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) appears before the House saying, “We are going to bring in accelerated competitive tendering in criminal defence work.”
	I have to admit something rather embarrassing to the House. I am afraid I am a constituent of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). At the last election I received a great deal of communication from him, much of which revolved around the third runway at Heathrow, which he valiantly opposed.

Sadiq Khan: This is just filibustering.

Ben Gummer: This is not filibustering. I will explain why. [Interruption.] I got the impression that a promethean career had been cut short by the principles of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but at no point—

Karl Turner: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you offer some guidance? When time is short and we are keen to debate the important issues in the Bill, is it right for hon. Members to go off the point so widely?

Nigel Evans: I am allowing a little latitude, and I mean a little. I am sure Mr Gummer will wish to get his remarks straight back on to the business before us.

Ben Gummer: I was about to say that in none of that communication did I receive any indication that the hon. Member for Hammersmith disapproved of the previous Government’s termination of competitive tendering for legal services in 2009. On that point he was silent. There was no outrage that the scheme that he is now proposing had been stopped by the previous Government, no sense that he would step down from a position on that point, as he would on the issue of the third terminal. Thus this modern-day Prometheus has been found wanting.
	May I ask, therefore, that in their submissions we may have a little more substance from the Opposition on how they might pay for the many amendments that they have tabled on Report, instead of their jumping on every passing bandwagon and every interest group to which they can plead?

Jonathan Edwards: I begin by declaring an interest as somebody who used to work for Citizens Advice Cymru before being elected to this place, and who currently serves as the
	secretary of the Citizens Advice all-party parliamentary group. I shall speak to new clause 43 and amendment 162 in my name. They are probing amendments so I shall be brief, but colleagues in the other place might want to pursue the matter in greater detail, especially as the amendments carry the support of the official Opposition, for which I am extremely grateful.
	The amendments are supported by advice organisations concerned that a strict interpretation of legislation may leave holes in the legal aid safety net. From a pragmatic and practical perspective, the intention of the amendments is to allow funding for the provision of advice from third-sector independent and impartial advice organisations to assist with understanding a case, without the requirement to provide formal and costly legal representation. That will help the Government achieve some of the savings aims in the Bill. In technical terms, the amendment would give the Lord Chancellor discretion to permit transfers from the legal aid budget to other funding streams for the provision of advice on issues to which schedule 1 does not apply.
	If schedule 1 is to be the future shape of civil legal aid, the scheme needs to work alongside advice services which deal with other legal issues, such as debt problems, issues of benefit entitlement and appeals under social security law, employment rights and immigration decisions. On a practical level, it is a waste of resources if legal aid clients cannot receive holistic advice. I know that that is something on which Citizens Advice prides itself. There will also be many cases at the margins of the situations covered in schedule 1, and the Legal Services Commission’s response to the Green Paper highlighted the problem of what it calls boundary issues, warning that
	“the administration costs of considering such cases could erode revenue savings that the Ministry of Justice has committed itself to.”
	That addresses some of the points that Opposition Members have raised throughout the debate on the Bill and draws attention to the unintended financial consequences of what the Government are trying to pursue. I will close as I want to allow colleagues to speak about other parts of the Bill, but it would be helpful if, in response, the Government could explain how the concerns of civil society bodies about access to advice as a result of the prescriptive nature of schedule 1 will be addressed.

Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we have had two hours of debate already and I am keen, as are other Members, to get through all four groups of amendments if humanly possible, so I will make only a few comments. It is appropriate that contributions from both sides of the House, including from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), have made the case for the Government to proceed sensitively on this delicate issue.
	My position is very clear: I signed up to the coalition agreement without reservation because it was the only realistic game in town. It was important to accept that one of the things that would drive Government policy was the need to reduce the deficit. That is right and necessary, so it is right that every Department should carry its share of that responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) made clear, the coalition agreement stated that there would be a review of the legal aid system to make it work more
	efficiently. If the Government are also to achieve their other objective, which is to ensure that the vulnerable are protected in a time of economy austerity and reduced spending, we must ensure that this part of public spending protects and assists them as much as possible. That is where the sensitivity arises.
	Like other Members who have spoken, I am lawyer, but I am not here to defend the lawyers. We need good lawyers, such as the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and many others, who come to law not to be paid six-figure salaries in large commercial firms, but to be paid £25,000 or £35,000 a year, often working 40, 50, 60 or 70 hour a weeks, in citizens advice bureaux. There is a very worthwhile legal advice centre in my constituency, the Cambridge House law centre in Southwark, and many other such places. We are here to ensure that the issues they raise are on the agenda.
	We are also here because in constituencies with high levels of unemployment and deprivation, such as mine, and in every other constituency, there are huge numbers of people who from time to time need legal support in the most difficult circumstances. We must ensure that the welfare net is protected. We have a very generous system, which cannot go on in the short term, but we must make the right decisions. All the attempts in the new clauses that concern me try to persuade the Government of that fact. I have five areas of concern and will flag up one relating specifically to the amendment that has not been spoken to already, but which I hope the Government will be able to respond to positively.

Stephen Lloyd: My right hon. Friend mentioned the good work that many lawyers do in this area—not the commercial fat cats—and touched briefly on Citizens Advice. Does he agree that the good work done by hundreds, if not thousands, of CAB legal advisers, who are not even lawyers but provide excellent advice, is absolutely unparalleled and that it would be a tragedy if any of the Government’s proposals led to cuts in that work?

Simon Hughes: None of us can stand up and say that there do not have to be reductions, but of course it is not just the lawyers, the citizens advice bureaux or the other advice bureaux we should be concerned about; it is advice workers and qualified advice workers too.
	The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who has just left the Chamber, tried to wind us up earlier. I have one objective in these considerations: if I do not think that a Bill was in the right place when it began, I want to ensure that it ends up in the right place by the time it becomes law, As we know, the reality is that sometimes we can make and win an argument in Committee, but it is very rare for a Government to be defeated in Committee. Sometimes the argument can be won on Report. Arguments are normally won when the Government have been persuaded not only in the Chamber, but outside it. I have had meetings with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and other colleagues, as have many other Members. The press reports that my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches want to make further progress and changes, and we will continue in that.
	We have heard that the Minister was very good and said in response to my amendment 145 which we debated on Monday that he would look specifically at the issue
	of family reunion, and I take him at his word. I think that that is a case where we need change, and I have no reason to think that, if he is helpful today, we cannot make significant progress. Of course, it would be lovely if all the amendments were made today, but we are not necessarily at that stage.

Tom Brake: My right hon. Friend has been a Member for many years. Can he recall on how many occasions when the Labour party was in power and we as an Opposition party put forward amendments in Committee that we received its support?

Simon Hughes: I cannot, either because there was none or they were very rare. To be serious, however, I have been a Member not quite for ever but for a long time under both Labour and Tory Governments, and I do not want to get distracted by that, because in reality we on the Liberal Democrat Benches all seek to work with the Government to get the right outcome, and we will do so constructively. We shall do that not by megaphone diplomacy but in a way that I hope is persuasive in argument and wins the day.
	I was as frustrated as everybody else when the final two groups of amendment were not debated on Monday, so I hope that Ministers will be sensitive to one thing that we lost out on, which was onward appeals. The Minister has it on his list, as amendment 147, and there is an issue when somebody who loses a case wins it on appeal but then the Government appeal on a matter of law. It seems important to ensure that there is parity between the citizen and the state, and I hope the Government concede that.
	I absolutely understand the case that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) makes in her new clause. I have many constituents—we all do—who present with one issue, whereupon we discover that there are four, or their whole life is in a mess, whereupon we have to start trying to put it together again. Their situation will involve finance, relationships and housing, and it may involve the custody or care of children, but those complex cases absolutely need to be looked at and with legal support. That ties in to my point about telephone advice services, because people with such complex needs—whether or not they have plastic bags when they come through the door—cannot quickly and efficiently put their case on the telephone. Sometimes they cannot do so face to face, either, but one is much more likely to get an answer having had face-to-face engagement than if one tries to do so remotely, on the telephone.

Alan Beith: Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in just those cases a high proportion of the advice required is not legal advice, but the advice of a sensible person with some experience in the area? Bodies such as Citizens Advice are very good at providing it.

Simon Hughes: For example, there is an organisation based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East called Christians Against Poverty, and it has people working in my constituency who are really good at dealing with debt. They have been tried and tested by me and others, so if one such element is debt I will often refer my constituent to them. They will
	unravel those issues and try to get them sorted even when in the county court there might be a legal issue, such as a possession action by the council or a housing association for the person’s flat, which one might need to manage as well.

Glenda Jackson: In our constituencies we all have equivalents of the organisation Christians Against Poverty, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and there is no question but that they do marvellous work, but the kind of cuts that the Government are talking about will impact either directly or indirectly and, most certainly, on the citizens advice bureaux in my constituency. The real concern—certainly felt by me and, I think, by every Opposition Member—is that a terrible rock is being thrown into the social system, and the ripples are going to take out more and more people and, therefore, reduce more and more the advice that is out there at the moment.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady and I have inner-city constituencies, and we have exactly the same—not exactly the same, because Highgate and Hampstead must have a slightly different profile from Bermondsey and Old Southwark—

Glenda Jackson: Hampstead and Kilburn.

Simon Hughes: Hampstead and Kilburn, as it now is, sounds more balanced and mixed, but of course the hon. Lady knows about and has experience of the issues.
	I think that the Government, given the constraints of the general economic position, are trying as hard as they can to find the support that the hon. Lady and I wish for. Her party, had there been a Labour Government in this Parliament, would have made cuts in legal aid and to public spending across the board, and she would not have liked it, as she did not when they were in power. Indeed, I remember her speaking against her Government pretty well every week in the previous Parliament, owing to what they were doing, and I was with her and made just those comments.
	However, this Government have already put some money into Citizens Advice, for example. Transitional funding is being discussed. My hon. Friends have discussed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who made a very welcome statement earlier today, putting more money on the table for public servants and the ways in which that might be extended. I understand the hon. Lady's point and we will try, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to win that argument, but we have to win it within the confines of what is a very difficult position for everyone, including the Government.
	On amendment 116, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made the point about clause 12. May I say to Ministers that if clause 12 is not going to be used, it ought to go? I understand why the Government might want a fall-back or safety-net position, but if it is not to be used they should let it go and say so. That is important because, as colleagues have identified, providing someone at a police station with legal advice and assistance will often save huge grief for them and their families
	and a huge amount of time for the police and other agencies that come to deal with them. Often, it will also save a huge amount of time for the criminal justice process afterwards. I am clear that, in time-efficient and cost-efficient spend, we ought to retain that and not lose it.
	Let me make a substantive point about amendment 148, which is in my name, about telephone advice and the telephone helpline. The Government propose that the community legal advice helpline that is currently in use and does a perfectly good job should, once the changes have come into operation, be the sole method of access to the service for certain issues at the beginning. It is proposed that there should be a mandatory single telephone gateway for four areas at the beginning: debt, inasmuch as it is covered by legal aid; community care; discrimination; and special educational needs, subject to exceptions. The plan is that there should then be a phased expansion of the provision of specialist telephone advice into the other areas of law for which legal aid is available, except for asylum matters, and that there should be a pilot scheme.
	The Justice Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has looked into this matter and said that it was not against a telephone advice line in principle, but it advised caution and the Government have responded cautiously. May I make two points about why the Government have to be really careful? First, there is real concern out there, as I know from my meetings with Cambridge House and other organisations that do legal aid work and advice in my constituency and borough, that if people have to go through a central call centre, which is the only way into the system, they will not get the same service as with NHS Direct, for example. With that service, if someone does not like what they get they can go to their chemist, GP or hospital, but this call centre will be the only way in.
	However good any advice line might be, some people are not going to be very able to deal with that service. I know that the Government are not being absolutist about this issue and that the theory is that the person at the other end will spot the person who might have learning difficulties, poor English or whatever and make sure that there is a face-to-face service. However, I am nervous that if someone from Bermondsey, to choose a place at random, phones up the national headquarters, which may be in Bradford, there will not be a full understanding of their circumstances as a recently arrived Eritrean with children, for example, who is barely able to speak English and is trying to sort out their housing when there are legal issues. I therefore ask the Government to think again about how we might make sure that there are ways for people to see someone face to face in their community or part of the world that do not require their having that kind of advice only in the first instance.

Yvonne Fovargue: The telephone helpline will also direct people who are not legally aidable towards paid-for services. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that if helpline staff do not know of any face-to-face advice agencies or telephone helplines for debt, for example, they might direct people to one of the fee-charging debt-management agencies, which would be totally inappropriate?

Simon Hughes: That would be inappropriate, and I hope that it would not happen. There should be safeguards.
	I want to be constructive about how we might deal with the matter. First, when there is a helpline, as there is already, there should be monitoring not just in theory by the Government. Just as we have lay visitors at police stations and so on, there should be a facility for Members of Parliament and others—perhaps a representative group, such as the Select Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed chairs—to be able to take part in seeing how the telephone helpline works. There will always be a telephone line, and I am not against that as an option, but it should be monitored by Parliament and Members of Parliament, as well as by the Government.
	Secondly, I would be much more comfortable if somewhere was available in each region, rather than having to go through a national central location. If there was someone with the capability of knowing local circumstances, that would be hugely preferable. I hope that the Minister will be positive in his response to our concerns, and I hope that we will be given some encouragement that they will be not just listened to, but responded to at the first opportunity.

Joan Ruddock: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I will have to leave the Chamber soon after I have spoken. I am taking part in the Royal Society’s parliamentary pairing scheme.
	I want to support some of the amendments tabled by Labour Front Benchers, and by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and my hon. Friend the. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I am here solely because of constituents who have written to me, and it is their words and their concerns that I wish to bring to the Chamber today. My hon. Friend made an important and informative speech, but I will make a much simpler speech, about my constituents and my relationship with them.
	I have been contacted not by the 20,000 names on my database of people for whom we have been providing help, but by the people who help them—those who look to family proceedings and the care of children, and who care for those with mental health problems, and the whole range of welfare associations and advice centres. Those workers know from their experience the limits of their own abilities to assist my constituents and, like me, know the limits of my abilities to assist my constituents. It is they who are aware of how much difficulty people will face if the Bill is enacted.
	The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) spoke about the telephone gateway. Recently I tried to use uSwitch. I rang it because I accepted the Government’s message to switch my energy company. I had all the papers in line as I sat at a desk with a landline. I called up and had a discussion, but when I was asked for my S number, I asked where I was likely to find that in the papers that I had already described. The person at the other end was unable to tell me. That should have been a simple process for a middle-class educated person.
	We make e-mail addresses and phone numbers available to constituents, so why, in my constituency and those of the right hon. Gentleman and so many other right hon. and hon. Members, do constituents come to see us in
	person? The majority of my constituents do not come in person, but the 20, 30 or 40 people at every constituency surgery do not feel able to deal with their problems over the telephone. Although I have extremely experienced and competent caseworkers, with the best will in the world they often have to say to those who call up, “I’m sorry, but I can’t get to the bottom of your problem unless you bring me the paperwork, and I see you face to face.”

Simon Hughes: I want to endorse one point, and to amplify it. I gave an example of someone from abroad, but in my experience, even people who were born and brought up here and have spent all their life here often need two, three or four visits before we can sort out what the issues are and get them on their way. It is not one-off bits of advice that they need.

Joan Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is key to the service that we provide as Members of Parliament. I know that Government Members have argued that we should not provide these services for our constituents, but I believe that we should, and I want to continue to do so.
	Sometimes a vulnerable, sick and disabled person who has been wrongly deprived of sickness or disability benefits comes to me. I can say, “This should happen,” “That should happen,” “Yes, there ought to be a review,” or, “There ought to be an appeal.” However, I cannot assemble the evidence with that person. I do not have people with many hours to spend on each individual case who can put together the paperwork and the arguments and do the research. At the end of the day, that expert job is done by an advice person in an agency, who will refer the person to a solicitor, who will provide them with legal aid—or we might refer them directly. That service is absolutely vital, and if the person does not have it, they are totally denied justice.

Jim Shannon: Is the right hon. Lady aware of any incidents of people coming in with multiple issues, some of which will qualify for legal aid and some of which will not, but they are intertwined because of the person’s situation? Does she think that clarification is needed within the legal aid system in order to have all those issues dealt with rather than excluding some of them?

Joan Ruddock: I certainly do, but of course the challenge for us now is not to be able to make things better but to try to save things from getting so much worse. That is the difficult situation that we are in.
	There are tenants who are undoubtedly unfairly deprived of housing benefit, and home owners who are unfairly deprived of help with mortgage interest payments. They can get no assistance in the Government’s new system. In cases of housing disrepair I can write to the council or to the housing association, and very often I can get a remedy with my own resources and caseworkers. Every so often, though, there is a blank refusal by the council to deal with situations involving property that I deem unfit for human habitation, and I cannot persuade it otherwise because of the vast amounts of money involved or the difficulties of transferring people when it has tens of thousands on its waiting list. At that point a legal challenge is necessary—and that is what will be denied people in future.

Glenda Jackson: I am sure that in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, as in mine, there is also the increasing problem of absentee landlords in the private sector who hand over the management of their properties to a managing agent, when often there is no management at all. It is virtually impossible for the individual who is suffering to try to pin down those people’s legal responsibilities without some kind of knowledge and support.

Joan Ruddock: I could not agree more. That is so often the case, and often only the threat of legal action can even get us to the point of knowing who we are trying to deal with. That is an essential point.
	Then there are those who are unlawfully evicted, and also those who may even be lawfully evicted, but could not or should not be evicted if they had an opportunity to contest the eviction. This morning we had a call from a family of five with the bailiffs at the door. If it had been a couple of days earlier, they could have been sent to a solicitor. We know about the case now, and the eviction could have been challenged. The family could have been kept in that home, albeit that they would have had to be put under a stringent regime of dealing with their financial difficulties, which came about because things had gone wrong with their housing benefit. In future, they would not be able to get the assistance that they so badly needed, and they would therefore, as now, present themselves and cost the state a lot more money, if they could get the help they need at all.
	Then there are the workers who are dismissed and found possibly to have a case for unfair dismissal. Under the Government’s proposals, they could get assistance only if they were able to claim discrimination. My constituency is hugely multicultural. Will people have to be told, “Can you possibly dress this up as discrimination, so that you can get the legal assistance that you will otherwise be denied”? We do not want to have to go down that path.
	This will be a terrible disaster for my constituents. The constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) may be more privileged than mine are. They may not need this kind of assistance, and he may not have surgeries bursting with constituents with problems. He may not receive the same number of e-mails, telephone calls and letters—[ Interruption. ] He smiles. Perhaps he would like to say—

Karl Turner: He thinks it’s funny. It’s disgusting. It’s a disgrace.

Nigel Evans: Order.

Joan Ruddock: There are real differences, I should tell the Minister. If he does not understand indices of deprivation, or the differences between constituencies in this country, I really do not think that he is fit for ministerial office.
	Let me end by citing two other types of case, to which I hope that the Minister will listen carefully. I have a constituent whose sister died in Africa. Her young child was brought to Britain with a visitor, and he stayed here because his aunt is the only person who is prepared to
	take care of him. Lewisham social services want to see that child legally adopted, and the Government are very keen on adoption. However, the child has no legal status in this country. Such cases are complicated when it comes to getting all the paperwork together and arguing the case to the immigration authorities, which have already turned down my constituent’s case once. That is the kind of case that requires legal assistance.
	The second case involves a trafficked woman, and it is one of the worst cases that I have ever had. She was trafficked here as a teenager, was raped repeatedly and gave birth to twins. She has never had her immigration status regularised. She cannot conceivably be sent back to Africa now, having been here for 12 years. These are the kinds of case that will be totally denied justice under the Government’s proposals. I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of my constituents and all those who work in advice services in Lewisham and elsewhere, to think again and not just to sit there laughing, as he is at the moment.

Simon Reevell: I too should declare an interest, in that I have practised at the criminal Bar since 1990.
	I congratulate the Minister on at least having the decency to bring in clause 12 through primary legislation, unlike the previous Government, who sought to bring in such a measure through secondary legislation until they were prevented from doing so by the High Court. I am afraid, however, that that is the limit of my congratulations, because—

Karl Turner: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is accurate. The Lord Chancellor has confirmed that the previous Government had no plans to bring in the legislation that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

Simon Reevell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will send him a copy of the case.
	The clause reveals a lack of understanding of the criminal justice system, and especially of the importance of the timing and purpose of police interviews. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has spoken—perhaps until just recently—with passion about police interviews from a defence perspective, and what he said was right. Just in case the Minister is not swayed by the defence, however, I would ask him also to pause and consider this matter from the perspective of the prosecution.
	Police interviews always take place at a time chosen by the prosecuting authorities, and the time is chosen because it is advantageous to them. In complex cases, perhaps involving drugs or organised violence, the police may arrange for simultaneous arrests, not least so that they can try to put the account of one arrested person against that of another, and try to break up those whom they believe to be part of a complicated conspiracy. The timing of the arrest might also be brought forward for the purpose of arranging the interview, in order to prevent a crime, or to protect a witness or a police source.
	All that will fail if the arrest has taken place and the person has been brought to the police station for interview, yet nothing happens while their means are picked over and the interviewing officer drinks tea. Evidence could
	be lost, co-accused could flee, and witnesses could be harmed. All that will take place in the period allowed for detention, which is slowly being eaten away. The accused will not have details of his means on him. Surely we are not seriously suggesting that armed police who are looking for drugs, blood-stained clothing or weapons will be asked to look for three years’ accounts or 12 months’ pay slips.
	There is a serious point to that. The rapist whom I prosecuted in the summer, who is now serving a seven-year prison sentence, was interviewed at a time that the police chose because it was appropriate for the purposes of their investigation. If they had had to wait while his means were established in order for his legal representation to be provided, it would not have been helpful to their inquiry—it would not have been what they wanted to do, and I am sure it would not have been what the victim of that offence would have wanted them to do.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely proper set of points, but given the realities of life in the police station, from either a defence or a prosecution point of view, does it not come down to the fact that that is not the time for means testing? At a later stage—for example, on conviction—a proper account could be made of a guilty person to establish whether they had the means to pay for their legal representation.

Simon Reevell: My hon. Friend is aware from his practice that at the point of conviction the court will consider applications for prosecution costs, which are effectively the costs of bringing the case before the court. There is nothing wrong in principle with somebody who can afford to contribute being invited to do so—“invited” in the firmest sense of the word. However, it is entirely appropriate to have a system that delays the proper prosecution of criminal justice while people’s bank accounts are checked to determine whether they qualify for legal aid at the police station. The problem is not only the injustice that might result for the accused, but the frustration that might be caused to those whom we task with investigating crime and prosecuting offenders. The introduction of such a counter-productive measure is in no way excused, in my opinion, by a promise never to use it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this debate. I am one of a minority of hon. Members in the Chamber who is not legally qualified, but on this occasion I am grateful that so many solicitors and barristers are Members of the House. They have made this a much better debate and brought experience to it. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said, particularly in relation to the removal of clause 12.
	When the House learns from its mistakes, it can introduce much better legislation. I have been here long enough to have gone through the experience of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and many other appalling miscarriages of justice. It is true that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 made a big difference and brought about a much fairer system of investigation. However, unfortunately it did not lead to the release of people who were wrongly convicted in Birmingham, which came much later as a result of a huge campaign, which in turn led to
	establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has hopefully reduced the chances of future miscarriages of justice.
	My experience and that of many other hon. Members of dealing with immigration cases, miscarriages of justice and many other misfortunes that befall our constituents is that problems often come from the initial point of contact with authority, be that a police or immigration officer, a housing official or someone else. People who are not represented at the initial point of contact when they should be might confess to things that they did not do, suggest they have done things that they could not possibly have done or just become hopelessly confused and accept whatever the official says. How many of our constituents have told us that they have said all kinds of things in good faith to an official, things they clearly did not understand because they were intimidated by the experience? It is at that point that our constituents—all of them—deserve the right of independent legal representation.
	The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made a good point about the delays that will happen in a police station if clause 12 is operated as drafted. It will be utterly ludicrous if the police arrest somebody and want to interview them, but are unable to get the basic information that they require and so have to keep them at the police station for a long time. That will take up police time and space when releasing the person might be the best course of action, all because there is an argument about whether a solicitor should be available.
	On the point about wealthy people getting advice, I am quite sure that Roman Abramovich goes around with the numbers of half a dozen solicitors in his wallet, or at least that his security staff do. I am not particularly worried about the ability of such oligarchs to gain access to lawyers should they fall on the wrong side of the police. I am worried about people who cannot afford to get a solicitor, who do not carry a number with them and who cannot get a duty solicitor because they cannot prove that they are entitled to legal aid. I suggest that the Government should simply accept this point and withdraw clause 12 in its entirety.
	I want to make two more quick points about the effect of the trajectory of legal aid. I was concerned about the trajectory of legal aid under the previous Government, as were many Members. The Liberal Democrats used to be concerned, but they have had a damascene conversion. Something far worse is now happening and they support it. When something less bad was happening, they opposed it. I do not know what has happened. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me at another time. I am too simple a soul to understand it.
	The changes in legal aid have been devastating for many good solicitors’ practices in inner-urban areas. Many have closed in my area because they cannot survive any longer. There is not enough other work so that they can cross-subsidise within the company. I am not sure that that would be a good principle even if they could do it. The shortage of funding for legal advice has hit law centres badly and they are trying hard to survive. As a result, many people who should be legally represented go unrepresented.
	I have the utmost time, respect and admiration for Islington law centre, but it is creaking at the seams with the pressure of the work that has fallen to it because of
	the number of solicitors’ practices that have closed and the number of people who are in desperate situations and want its help. It is doing its best. It relies heavily on pro bono work and trainee solicitors who work at the law centre as part of their training. That is not a bad thing—in fact, it is a good thing—but the whole system should not rely on pro bono solicitors and on the good will of trainees. I am very grateful to those people, but the system should not rely on them.
	Likewise, Islington council, despite the huge problems and pressures it is facing, like every inner-urban area, has to its credit found the time, political determination and resources to open a citizens advice bureau on Upper street, opposite the town hall. It is absolutely packed out, largely dealing with debt advice. A lot of the advice that is given does not require legally qualified people, but can be given by good advisers. However, the resources have to be there to ensure that it happens.

Stephen Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is proposed by those of us in Parliament who work closely with Citizens Advice would still lead to a reduction in cost from the current £25.5 million to £16.5 million, which as I said earlier is a 40% reduction? Citizens advice bureaux are trying to be productive to ensure that they can retain their funding.

Jeremy Corbyn: Citizens advice bureaux do a fantastic job and they do their best to be as productive as possible. It is hard to measure productivity when one is dealing with advice. It is hard to measure how long it takes to explain to people the seriousness of their situation. As we all know from our advice surgeries, some people get it quickly and others take a long time to understand the reality of their situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, it sometimes takes several visits. A solicitor or advice bureau cannot do that; only MPs can do that. That is why we are vulnerable to such visitations every Friday evening, or whenever we hold our advice surgeries.
	The other point I wanted to make is about the effect of these provisions on the legal profession. Like other hon. Members, I visit universities and colleges on occasion, and I meet and talk to students. I meet many enthusiastic young law students who are working hard and doing well. They want to work in criminal law and advice, but they cannot get work in those areas. We are turning out a generation of lawyers who pursue property and commercial cases because that is where the money is, and the criminal law will suffer, along with the rights of the individual. The poorest people in the poorest communities in this country will suffer as a result.
	The legal aid changes will lead to an inequality of justice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford made two very important points. The first was about family reunion cases in immigration law. Notwithstanding the problems with the Border and Immigration Agency, there is a cost implication of removing legal aid for family reunion, because it will lead to children being taken into care, more misery for families—sometimes with accompanying abuse—and children under-achieving in school because they are so
	stressed by being divided from a family in a refugee camp in Kenya, Sudan or the horn of Africa, as is often the case in my constituency. Those children deserve to be represented so that they can have a family around them to give them support.
	The second point was about housing. Like every other constituency in London, mine is increasingly dominated by the private rented sector, which is now bigger than the owner-occupier sector and is increasing fast. Tenants face short-term tenure, difficulties with landlords, absentees and problems with repairs, and all the other insecurities involved in such situations, and they need, deserve and should have access to appropriate legal advice to ensure that the law is carried out and they receive the protection that is due to them.
	Yes, legal aid is expensive. When it was introduced in the 1940s by the very progressive Labour Government, it was seen as part of the welfare state. The welfare state included social security, housing, health, unemployment benefits and a right to access to justice. I honestly believe that the trend of cuts in legal aid means that universal access to justice is slowly disappearing before our very eyes, and that is wrong.

Yasmin Qureshi: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said from the Front Bench about the cuts in welfare rights, and I also agree with the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I shall not reiterate everything that they said as time is short, but I want to address clause 12 and ask the Minister to remove it from the Bill.
	Before I go into the reasoning behind that request, I have a general caveat. What I am about to say is not a criticism of police officers. In all professions and walks of life there are people who do not do their jobs properly and have mala fide motives. Section 52 of PACE, which was introduced in 1984 by a Conservative Government, gave people arrested at a police station the right to see a solicitor of their choosing. As hon. Members may remember, that particular piece of legislation came about because of several riots over the sus laws, and Lord Scarman was asked by the then Government to investigate the cause of those riots.
	In those days, under the old sus laws, the police could stop anyone walking on the street without any justification and without having to show reasonable cause. Inevitably, a lot of the people stopped were young men of Afro-Caribbean origin in London and young men from working-class backgrounds in the rest of the country. As a result of Lord Scarman’s inquiry and investigation, the then Conservative Government passed that piece of legislation, which, generally, was a good one that brought us up to date with many other countries with similar economies to ours and with what we could call western democratic institutions. We would be hard-pressed to find, in any of those countries, a defendant at a police station being denied the right to free legal advice. Taking away that right will almost put us back three centuries. It is not compatible with modern, 21st-century Britain and its place in the world.
	We talk about saving money, but more money is saved when people are advised properly at a police station. I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury
	(Simon Reevell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). From the prosecution and defence perspective, they talked about how such advice should be allowed. As someone who has both prosecuted and defended for the past 20-odd years, I think that access to legal representation at a police station is not only the fair, right and proper thing for a civilised society, such as ours, to do, but in the long term it saves money. It avoids unnecessary not-guilty pleas and saves unnecessary time going to court and prosecuting people. If people are spoken to by a solicitor, often—in most cases, I would say—solicitors advise their clients correctly. In my experience, if there is evidence against clients, the solicitors and lawyers tend to advise people to plead guilty. This proposal, therefore, will not save money, but waste more money. If the argument is about economy, I would have to point out that it is a false economy.
	I shall give an example involving the Crown Prosecution Service. Following the Narey review, which looked into why so many cases going to court were leading to acquittals, Crown prosecutors started going into police stations, looking at cases and working with the police in order to speed up the criminal process. As a result of that direct input by lawyers at the beginning of the criminal prosecution system, the number of cases going for not-guilty pleas has been reduced and many more people now plead guilty.
	I also want to mention the disclosure system, which was introduced under a fantastic piece of legislation brought in, again, by a Conservative Government—the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Prior to that, we had a system under which some police officers and police forces withheld material evidence in criminal cases, leading to many miscarriages of justice. The new disclosure regime came into being to deal with that and, as a result, everything now has to be disclosed.
	Those were Conservative Government policies, which is why I am so surprised that the Government have proposed clause 12. It will not save any money, but there is a more fundamental point. The worst thing that a person can face is being arrested, detained, taken to a police station—often a very hostile environment—and having no one to speak to who understands the procedures. This proposal will remove a fundamental right.
	Despite our financial difficulties, we are still a rich nation in comparison with the rest of the world. When I worked for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, I helped to deal with criminal justice issues, and one of the first things we did when we got the system up and running was to draft—I was involved in it—the regulation of access to a lawyer for a person arrested by the police. That was 11 years ago in a country that had suffered 10 or 12 years of civil unrest. Its institutions were not working properly and it was financially not very solvent, but even there, 11 years ago, this particular provision was brought in because it was recognised that a person who is arrested and taken to a police station must have independent legal advice.

David Ward: Does the hon. Lady not think it quite telling that although we had intervention after intervention from those on the Government Benches last night when it was argued that existing legislation allowed action to be taken against squatters, we have had no interventions
	today to explain why we are wrong about clause 12 or new clause 17, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)?

Yasmin Qureshi: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation, and I agree with him.
	I shall conclude my remarks, because I know that we want to get on to the next piece of business. My fundamental plea is this: please do not take away the right to legal advice at a police station.

Kate Green: I want to ask the Minister two questions about social welfare law. I also feel obliged, even at this late stage in the debate, to speak briefly to the three amendments standing in my name—amendments 69, 70 and 71—which have not yet been debated.
	My first question for the Minister follows the sensible remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) earlier about how the Government are making significant legislative changes to a number of areas in social welfare law. They include some that he mentioned, such as the introduction of the universal credit and the changes to disability living allowance. I would add to that the substantial changes to housing, child maintenance and the immigration system, where I can already report a shortage of supply in my constituency when it comes to accessing good advice. If legal aid is not to be available to take people through what will be a period of incredible complexity and confusion, what discussions has the Minister had with ministerial colleagues in other Departments to ensure adequate provision and funding for people to receive advice, at least in this transitional period? Failing to put that funding in place will cost the Government more rather than less.
	My second question for the Minister relates to the additional £20 million of funding that has been made available to support advice agencies—or really, to cope with the loss of legal aid coverage in certain categories of law. That is particularly important in my constituency, because Trafford law centre stands to lose almost all its funding, given that it is currently funded by an immigration contract and an employment contract, both of which will go. It also receives Equality and Human Rights Commission funding, which is due to end, with a small and diminishing proportion of its funding coming from the local authority. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about the £20 million fund, which my law centre is understandably interested in, but which it rather suspects has already been earmarked to support agencies elsewhere? Is it a one-off fund or will it be available in future years? What is the process for deciding how the money will be disbursed?
	Finally, my amendments 69, 70 and 71 deal with the transfer of Legal Services Commission staff to the civil service, which the Minister spoke about in his opening remarks this afternoon. My understanding is that the Bill is proceeding on the assumption that TUPE will not apply to the transfer. Of course, only the courts can finally determine whether that is the case, but in any event, the Bill should proceed on the basis that transferring employees will have at least the same protection that would apply if TUPE applied. In any event, what should apply is the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector, paragraph 19 of which says that
	“transfers at the instigation and under the control of Central Government will usually be effected through legislation,”—
	as is true in this case—
	“in particular those involving Officeholders. Provision can then be made for staff to transfer on TUPE terms irrespective of whether the transfer is excluded from the scope of the Directive implemented by TUPE. Departments must therefore ensure that legislation effecting transfers of functions between public sector bodies makes provision for staff to transfer and on a basis that follows the principles of TUPE along with appropriate arrangements to protect occupational pension, redundancy and severance terms.”
	I was grateful for the assurances that the Minister offered this afternoon on some of those points, and I understand that transferring employees will be offered membership of the premium section of the principal civil service pension scheme. I accept that that is at least as favourable as the Legal Services Commission’s own pension arrangements. The terms on which members of the LSC scheme can transfer their accrued rights to the civil service pension scheme will no doubt be set out in the transfer scheme contemplated in schedule 4. Will the Minister confirm that my understanding of the position is correct?
	If the TUPE regulations and the acquired rights directive that lies behind them apply, the current early retirement and severance arrangements that apply to LSC employees would continue to apply to them post-transfer. That is what the TUPE regulations and the directive require, and those arrangements provide for the early payment of enhanced pensions if an employee over the age of 50 is made redundant. If the Cabinet Office statement of practice to which I alluded earlier is to be honoured, those rights will continue to apply post-transfer. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether they will. If he cannot do so this afternoon, I would be most grateful if he would write to me on that point.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Exceptionally, to deal with new clauses and amendments not dealt with by Mr Slaughter earlier, I call Jenny Chapman.

Jenny Chapman: I speak in support of amendment 116, which would delete clause 12 from the Bill. It is with regret that I will keep my comments extremely brief. Some of the matters discussed today should really have been discussed on Monday. This regret is most keenly felt because the parents of Jane Clough are in the Gallery and had hoped to see us debate changes to bail.
	Clause 12, which would allow the Government, based on either a means test or a an interest of justice test, to choose not to provide an arrested person with an independent legal adviser. The powers that the Government seek to gain were not subject to consultation and have generated significant controversy. It is not just Labour that opposes this clause. Members of all parties oppose it. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) spoke eloquently against it in Committee and again today. Others who have spoken against it include my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), for
	Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), and the right hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Some Tory Back Benchers have told us that they, too, oppose it. The Liberal Democrats have signed the amendment, for which we are grateful.
	On this issue, however, the Minister appears to be against the clause. He said to the legal action group conference:
	“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take legal help away from the police station.”
	It appears, however, that the Secretary of State for Justice is embarrassed by that. He tried to blame it on Labour, saying that it was one of our proposals. A few weeks later, after the bemused Labour Front-Bench team checked with the House of Commons Library, the Secretary of State’s spokesman issued the following statement:
	“The remark was made in error by the Justice Secretary during the Second Reading debate. The provisions in clause 12(3)(a) and (b) are new and, so far as I know, there have not been similar provisions in any previous Bills that did not pass into legislation.”
	What a shambles—but there is more!
	In the Public Bill Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) subsequently said:
	“My opinion is that as things stand, the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]
	This might well be the first time a Minister has argued against his own legislation while seeking to enact it.
	There was a time when people did not have access to a lawyer on arrest. Injustice after injustice propelled Parliament into action. It was, in fact, the previous Conservative Government—one who included the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—who enacted the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which for the first time provided a suspect in police custody with a statutory right to legal advice. A textbook on police law explains:
	“By section 58 of PACE, a person arrested and held in police custody is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time.”
	I am deeply concerned. In Committee, the Minister—whose conflicts of opinion match his alleged conflicts of interest—changed his mind again. Having said earlier
	“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take away legal help from the police station”,
	he said in Committee:
	“I am not asking the Committee’s permission to implement means-testing. I am asking for permission to introduce flexibility into the Bill, so that at a later stage it could be considered, subject to full consultation.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 436.]
	We know what the Government’s consultations are like. There were 5,000 responses to their consultation on legal aid, and they ignored them all.
	At present, police station advice is provided free to anyone who is arrested. What takes place in the police station often determines how the case will proceed, and whether or not the police decide to lay charges.

Ian Mearns: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech so far. Does she agree that the Government are being penny wise and pound foolish? Their proposals present the prospect of many miscarriages of justice, which could ultimately prove very costly for them to sort out.

Jenny Chapman: I could not have put it better myself.
	It is essential for people who are detained in police custody to have access to free, independent legal advice, not only because they are at their most vulnerable and because evidence obtained from people in custody may be inadmissible if they have not had access to independent legal advice, but because the presence of a solicitor makes a significant difference to the fairness of the investigation and the subsequent smooth progress of the case. It would therefore be utterly inappropriate to introduce a merit test that goes beyond the fact of arrest.
	As for a means test, it would in practice deprive many people who failed it of their right to a lawyer, as they would not feel able to afford to pay privately. However, that is not the only reason for not introducing such a test. Applying it would inevitably introduce delay in the process and prevent the police from proceeding as quickly as they would wish. Clients who are in police custody will not have access to documents with which to verify their entitlements, and clients who do not pass the means test are in no position to instruct the solicitor of their choice on a private basis, because they cannot pick and choose and cannot argue about terms and conditions. In short, they will be completely disfranchised, and in the most terrifying position in which the average citizen can find himself.
	It should be clear by now that we oppose the new clause. It is no good hoping and praying, as the Liberal Democrats keep doing, that it will be repealed in another place. I urge all Members to join us in the Lobby when we press it to a vote—unless, of course, the Minister has the sense to withdraw it.

Jonathan Djanogly: I welcome the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) on the occasion of her first outing at the Dispatch Box.
	Most of what was said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) concerned the scope of civil legal aid, and was therefore not directly covered by the new clauses and amendments. It would have been good if he had discussed all the amendments that he had tabled, but he could not even do that. However, he certainly showed us once again that he knows how to spend taxpayers’ money, but not how to save it. He mentioned only one saving, when he said that he would have proceeded with criminal contract competition to save money rather than cutting social welfare law. Criminal competition in line with Labour’s model would have secured a very small reduction in the £180 million spent on police station advice—a reduction of only about 10%—which is not really enough. The hon. Gentleman will have to say where else he would make cuts. When Labour tried to address contracting, it failed, and it had to pull its contracting proposals in 2009.
	Amendment 123, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith spoke, is intended to alter the provisions in relation to the independence of the director of legal aid casework. That subject was debated substantially in Committee, but having heard the hon. Gentleman speak
	about it again, I still fail to understand the rationale behind the amendment, and, as I will explain, I consider it unnecessary. Let me briefly explain the role and key functions of the director, and also explain why I believe that independence is important and why it is already enshrined in the Bill.
	Under the provisions, the Lord Chancellor is obliged to appoint a civil servant as a statutory office holder who will be responsible for making funding decisions in individual cases, as well as funding decisions in relation to exceptional case applications under the Bill. The statutory office holder is to be known as the director of legal aid casework. The Lord Chancellor is also obliged to provide civil servants to assist the director in carrying out their functions.
	Under the new structural arrangements, clause 4 is potentially the most important provision. It ensures that the director has independence in making funding decisions, and is free from any political interference in making those decisions. That independence is enshrined specifically by subsection (4), which the hon. Member for Hammersmith wishes to delete, and which prohibits the Lord Chancellor from giving guidance or directions in individual cases. There are provisions in the clause that oblige the director to comply with directions given by the Lord Chancellor and to have regard to guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor, but crucially they cannot relate to individual cases.
	The protection of the director against interference in individual cases is an important safeguard. The Bill already establishes the director in a way that maintains and protects the director’s independence of decision making. The director is a separate office from the Lord Chancellor created by statute. I therefore believe that the Bill already establishes a proper role for the director, free from any political interference in individual cases. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I am sorry, but I do not have time to take interventions.

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I will not give way.

Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to ask the Minister whether progress has been made on introducing a clause that would allow an appeal against the granting of bail. A concession was given in Committee, and several Members have tabled amendments, but we will not reach them today. Will the Minister update us?

Jonathan Djanogly: I would dearly have loved to have reached the provisions relating to bail, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should ask the official Opposition why we have not done so.

Nigel Evans: Order. Clearly, that was not a point of order, and the Minister has now dealt with the point raised.

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall now turn to amendments 69, 70 and 71, tabled by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), which address pensions and compensation.
	Amendment 69 looks to ensure that Legal Services Commission employees transferring to the civil service are treated fairly. As drafted, the Bill and commitment between the Ministry of Justice and the LSC will achieve that. The Ministry is committed to ensuring that transferring staff are not put in a less favourable position than that of existing civil servants. The Bill protects LSC employees’ terms and conditions at the point of transfer, with the exception of those for pensions and compensation. The Bill also protects employees’ length of service.
	When LSC employees transfer to the civil service, they will be enrolled as members of the premium section of the principal civil service pension scheme. The Government Actuary’s Department has determined that that scheme is “broadly comparable” to the existing LSC pension offer. Broad comparability is the standard defined by the Cabinet Office for the pension offer for staff transferred to organisations within the public sector. LSC staff will be able to choose whether to move any entitlement built up in the LSC scheme to the civil service pension scheme, or whether to leave it within the LSC scheme. Those arrangements have been communicated to LSC employees and their representatives. I will write to the hon. Lady on the TUPE point.
	New clause 17 was moved by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Her significant experience in the field became clear, as it also did in Committee. Many Members spoke to the new clause, including the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
	The new clause is very broad and would widen the scope of legal aid and increase its cost at a time when we are seeking to focus funding on the highest priority cases. It would have the effect of bringing into scope areas which are not covered in schedule 1—and which we intend no longer to fund—by virtue of their interconnected and complex nature. We have undertaken a comprehensive consultation of legal aid with published impact and equality assessments, and we have received almost 5,000 responses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out, cases will arise where it will be difficult to separate two or more legal issues in terms of funding. Under the current legal aid scheme, there are provisions in the funding code to cover mixed cases, where the case is partly in and partly out of scope. Those provisions allow funding of the whole case in certain circumstances, and in others they allow funding for aspects of the case. I am pleased to confirm to my right hon. Friend that paragraph 39 of schedule 1 ensures similar appropriate provision in the new scheme. We consider that that approach provides a more proportionate means of dealing with interconnected matters than the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Makerfield.
	Leaving aside the technicalities, I appreciate that various right hon. and hon. Members have used the new clause as a hook to debate admittedly important issues
	on the scope of social welfare law and legal aid. As anyone who attended the Committee will know, that area was of significant concern to all hon. Members, not only as a stand-alone issue, but in its interaction with the not-for-profit provision. The Government have already made a number of changes to our proposals in the area of social welfare law following consultation, which shows that we are aware of concerns and have been listening. Those changes include: retaining special educational needs cases; expanding the range of debt matters; and retaining unlawful eviction cases in scope. We will also still be spending £50 million on social welfare law post-reforms. I shall address the not-for-profit sector, but I take this opportunity to assure hon. Members that, as this Bill heads to the other place, we will continue to listen and engage on this important issue. For the reasons I have given, therefore, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her new clause to a Division.
	On not-for-profit organisations, I wish to address points made by the hon. Member for Makerfield, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, the hon. Members for Bradford East and for Walsall South, and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). In order to do so, I shall speak to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), although it should be noted that it was debated in Committee and his amendment 162 also covers ground debated then.
	The primary purpose of new clause 43, as in subsection (1), is to enable funding to be made available for advice on areas of law that would otherwise have been taken out of scope. However, the important qualification to that is in the definitional provision in subsection (5), which specifies that “civil legal advice” does not include representation for the purposes of proceedings. As such, the provision is limited to the “legal help” level of service, which encompasses the range of early advice offered, in particular, by the not-for-profit sector. Amendment 162 is very similar in nature and seeks to provide funding for out of scope areas under schedule 1 at the “legal help” level.
	New clause 43 and amendment 162 are unnecessary. Let me start by reiterating my statements from Committee, where I said clearly that I greatly admire the work of the UK’s not-for-profit advice centres and recognise that they are an important national asset. I can tell the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that I very much value the advice they provide to my constituents, and I am sure that all hon. Members feel similarly. Throughout all the parliamentary debates thus far on changes to legal aid, the value and esteem that MPs and local communities place on their local advice centres has been made very clear.
	In that context, I would like to deal head-on with the issue that hon. Members have raised about the provision of early advice. Let me make it clear that, as I said in Committee, I strongly agree with the argument that many people with disputes or grievances need early, good-quality general advice, and not necessarily the expertise of specialist lawyers. I acknowledge hon. Members' points and intuitively I agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield that some early advice may well have a preventive benefit in avoiding downstream costs. However, changes to legal aid should not of themselves undermine the provision of general advice. As a matter of principle,
	legal aid is money that has been intended for specialist advice, not for cross-subsidising other activities, as the amendments appear to provide for. I say to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) that, as a matter of practice, legal aid represents only one of several income streams for many organisations. For example, 85% of citizens advice bureaux funding comes from other sources, with half of all bureaux getting no legal aid funding whatsoever.
	The Government share the views raised by hon. Members and want to see a robust and sustainable not-for-profit advice sector. We have heard and considered carefully the concerns about the risks that a combination of funding changes presents, and we intend to keep the conversation with the advice sector going. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked about this area, and I can tell her that the £107 million transition fund made available last December is testament to a pan-government commitment to general, practical advice that empowers individuals in resolving their issues.
	In addition, the Lord Chancellor announced £20 million for this financial year to support not-for-profit agencies delivering front-line services. Both citizens advice bureaux and advice centres more widely will be able to bid for that. Work between Departments on the administration of the fund is proceeding well. I hope and expect that the Cabinet Office will make an announcement shortly to provide the detailed terms of the fund. A review of free advice centres will be launched to ensure that we are doing all we can to support the sector. The review will start in early November and conclude early in the new year. It will look at the future funding for these services and likely levels of demand, and will focus on what Government can do to help the sector.
	My right hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne all spoke about help for complicated benefits advice. They will appreciate that that is very much to do with identifying what should be dealt with as legal advice and what should be dealt with as early general advice. It is this type of issue that the review will need to cover, so yes, we will be looking carefully at these issues not again, but on an ongoing basis.
	Subsection (2) of new clause 43 seeks to provide the Lord Chancellor with a power to enter into arrangements regarding the funding and delivery of services, and specifies the nature of the funding arrangements that the Lord Chancellor may enter into. This is an unnecessary amendment because the Lord Chancellor enjoys wide powers to enter into any arrangements under clause 2, pursuant to his duty to provide legal aid under clause 1. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr to withdraw his amendments.
	Let me agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, and the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Makerfield made the same sort of points—that the Departments of State need to make better decisions at an earlier stage, leading to fewer appeals. I can tell hon. Members that I have been working closely with Ministers in the relevant Departments to that end and I will continue to do so.
	The hon. Member for Walsall South said that she was concerned about the removal of education. I can confirm that we will now retain legal aid for special educational needs and discrimination matters relating to the contravention of the Equality Act 2010.
	The hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Makerfield spoke about welfare benefits law being complex and asked how claimants could prepare their own tribunal applications. In most cases individuals will be able to appeal to the first tier social security and child support tribunal without formal legal assistance. The appellant is required only to provide reasons for disagreeing with the decision in plain language. According to the 2007-08 report by the president of the tribunal, it is a regular theme at the tribunal that DWP decisions are most commonly overturned because the tribunal elicits additional information from the appellant, rather than through legal arguments. So success is clearly not generally dependent on the appellant receiving legal advice.
	Finally, on clause 12, many points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), and the hon. Members for Islington North and for Bolton South East. The final series of amendments—90, 104, 116, 125 and 148—seek to amend clause 12, which deals with legal aid determination for individuals arrested and held in custody in a police station or other premises.
	I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West and the hon. Member for Darlington who spoke to the amendment that amendment 116 would remove clause 12 entirely, which would mean that the Bill would make no provision at all for individuals held in custody at a police station or other premises to be provided with initial advice and initial assistance. Surely that is not the hon. Lady’s or any other hon. Member’s intention. She may therefore wish to reconsider whether a Division is appropriate on the amendment.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members made serious and appropriate points. Having heard what has been said and having considered the issue, I appreciate that there are many deeply held concerns across the House and more widely on both the principle and the practicality of means-testing for advice and assistance for those in police custody and in relation to the concept of contingent legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said. I can confirm that we will, therefore, carefully review our approach to these clause issues as the Bill goes through its stages in another place.

Karl Turner: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) referred in his remarks to claims that the previous Government planned to legislate for means-testing in police stations. The Lord Chancellor wrote to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on 2 August. Will the Government confirm that he wrote to apologise and that the letter will appear in the Library?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has certainly got it on the record.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Northern Ireland: information about financial resources

‘Schedule [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources] (Northern Ireland: information about financial resources) has effect.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17
	 — 
	Extension of scope of legal aid in complex cases

‘(1) Civil legal services other than services described in Part 1 of Schedule 1 are to be available to an individual under this Part if subsection (2) is satisfied.
	(2) This subsection is satisfied where the Director—
	(a) has made a complex case determination in relation to the individual and the services, and
	(b) has determined that the individual qualifies for the services in accordance with this Part,
	(and has not withdrawn either determination).
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a complex case determination is a determination—
	(a) that the individual has complex, interconnected needs in relation to which the individual requires comprehensive civil legal services, and
	(b) not all of those civil legal services would otherwise be available to the individual because they do not all fall within the scope of Schedule 1.’.—(Yvonne Fovargue.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 238, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Schedule 3
	 — 
	‘Northern Ireland: information about financial resources

Obtaining information
	1 (1) The relevant authority may make an information request to—
	(a) the Secretary of State,
	(b) a relevant Northern Ireland Department, or
	(c) the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“the Commissioners”).
	(2) An information request may be made under this paragraph only for the purposes of facilitating a determination about an individual’s financial resources for the purposes of —
	(a) the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I. 8)), or
	(b) the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435) (N.I. 10)).
	(3) An information request made to the Secretary of State or a relevant Northern Ireland Department under this paragraph may request the disclosure of some or all of the following information—
	(a) a relevant individual’s full name and any previous names;
	(b) a relevant individual’s address and any previous addresses;
	(c) a relevant individual’s date of birth;
	(d) a relevant individual’s national insurance number;
	(e) a relevant individual’s benefit status at a time specified in the request;
	(f) information of a prescribed description.
	(4) An information request made to the Commissioners under this paragraph may request the disclosure of some or all of the following information—
	(a) whether or not a relevant individual is employed or was employed at a time specified in the request;
	(b) the name and address of the employer;
	(c) whether or not a relevant individual is carrying on a business, trade or profession or was doing so at a time specified in the request;
	(d) the name under which it is or was carried on;
	(e) the address of any premises used for the purposes of carrying it on;
	(f) a relevant individual’s national insurance number;
	(g) a relevant individual’s benefit status at a time specified in the request;
	(h) information of a prescribed description.
	(5) The information that may be prescribed under sub-paragraphs (3)(f) and (4)(h) includes, in particular, information relating to—
	(a) prescribed income of a relevant individual for a prescribed period, and
	(b) prescribed capital of a relevant individual.
	(6) Information may not be prescribed under sub-paragraph (4)(h) without the Commissioners’ consent.
	(7) The Secretary of State, the relevant Northern Ireland Departments and the Commissioners may disclose to the relevant authority information specified in an information request made under this paragraph.
	(8) In this paragraph—
	“benefit status”, in relation to an individual, means whether or not the individual is in receipt of a prescribed benefit or benefits and, if so—
	(a) which benefit or benefits the individual is receiving,(b) whether the individual is entitled to the benefit or benefits alone or jointly,(c) in prescribed cases, the amount the individual is receiving by way of the benefit (or each of the benefits) (“the benefit amount”), and(d) in prescribed cases, where the benefit consists of a number of elements, what those elements are and the amount included in respect of each element in calculating the benefit amount;
	“financial resources”, in relation to an individual, includes an individual’s means, disposable income and disposable capital;
	“the relevant authority” means—
	(a) a prescribed person, or(b) in relation to circumstances for which no person is prescribed, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission;
	“a relevant individual”, in relation to an information request under this paragraph for the purposes of a determination about an individual’s financial resources, means—
	(a) that individual, and(b) any other individual whose financial resources are or may be relevant for the purposes of the determination;
	“relevant Northern Ireland Department” means the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland or the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.
	Restrictions on disclosing information
	2 (1) A person to whom information is disclosed under paragraph 1 of this Schedule or this sub-paragraph may disclose the information to any person to whom its disclosure is necessary or expedient in connection with facilitating a determination described in paragraph 1(2).
	(2) A person to whom such information is disclosed must not—
	(a) disclose the information other than in accordance with sub-paragraph (1), or
	(b) use the information other than for the purpose of facilitating a determination described in paragraph 1(2).
	(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not prevent—
	(a) the disclosure of information in accordance with an enactment or an order of a court,
	(b) the disclosure of information for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of an offence (or suspected offence) under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland or any other jurisdiction, except as otherwise prescribed,
	(c) the disclosure of information for the purposes of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court, or
	(d) the disclosure of information which has previously been lawfully disclosed to the public.
	(4) A person who discloses or uses information in contravention of this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable—
	(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);
	(b) on summary conviction—
	(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), and
	(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
	(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this paragraph to prove that the person reasonably believed that the disclosure or use was lawful.
	(6) In this paragraph “enactment” includes—
	(a) an enactment contained subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978), and
	(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland legislation.
	(7) In relation to an offence under this paragraph committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (4)(b)(i) to 12 months has effect as if it were a reference to 6 months.
	Power to make consequential and supplementary provision etc
	3 (1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision in relation to this Schedule extending to Northern Ireland.
	(2) The regulations may, in particular—
	(a) amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify Northern Ireland legislation passed before this Schedule comes into force or an instrument made under such legislation, and
	(b) include transitory or saving provision.
	Regulations
	4 (1) In this Schedule “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
	(2) The powers under this Schedule to make regulations are exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
	(3) Regulations under this Schedule are subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, subject to sub-paragraph (4).
	(4) The following regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly—
	(a) the first regulations under paragraph 1, and
	(b) regulations under paragraph 3 that amend or repeal Northern Ireland legislation (whether alone or with other provision).
	(5) Section 41(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment (as defined in that Act).
	(6) Subsections (1) to (3) of section 38 apply in relation to regulations made under paragraph 1 or 2 of this Schedule as they apply in relation to regulations made by the Lord Chancellor under this Part.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Amendment proposed: 116,page8,line29, leave out Clause 12.—(Mr Slaughter.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 233, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 32
	 — 
	Restriction on disclosure of information about financial resources

Amendments made: 1,page24,line26, after ‘conviction’, insert ‘—
	(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), and
	(ii) in Northern Ireland’.
	Amendment 2,page24,line35, at end insert—
	‘( ) In relation to an offence under this section committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4)(b)(i) to 12 months has effect as if it were a reference to 6 months.’.—(Mr Djanogly.)

Clause 38
	 — 
	Orders, regulations and directions

Amendment made: 25,page28,line18, leave out ‘modify’ and insert ‘amend or repeal a provision of’.—(Mr Djanogly.)

Clause 39
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendments made: 26,page28,line35, after ‘regulations’ insert ‘(except in Schedule [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources])’.
	Amendment 27,page28,line37 [Clause 39], at end insert ‘(except in Schedule [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources])’.—(Mr Djanogly.)

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Transfer of employees and property etc of Legal Services Commission

Amendments made: 64,page131,line8, at end insert—
	‘(6A) A transfer scheme may, so far as is necessary for giving effect to that scheme, provide that an enactment that applies in relation to compensation schemes or occupational pension schemes applies to a compensation scheme or occupational pension scheme that is the subject of the transfer scheme, the members of such a scheme or the transferee with modifications specified in the transfer scheme.
	(6B) A transfer scheme may—
	(a) amend or otherwise modify a compensation scheme that is the subject of the transfer scheme, and
	(b) create, modify or remove rights, powers, duties or liabilities under or in connection with such a scheme.
	(6C) The power under sub-paragraph (6B) includes power to amend or otherwise modify any instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of a compensation scheme.
	(6D) Transfer schemes amending or otherwise modifying a compensation scheme have effect in spite of any provision (of any nature) which would otherwise prevent or restrict the amendment or modification.
	(6E) A transfer scheme may include consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory and saving provision.’.
	Amendment 65,page131,line15, at end insert—
	‘Power to merge LSC occupational pension schemes
	4A (1) The Lord Chancellor may make a scheme providing for the merger of LSC occupational pension schemes.
	(2) A scheme under this paragraph may in particular—
	(a) provide for the assets and liabilities of one LSC occupational pension scheme to become assets and liabilities of another,
	(b) create, modify or remove rights, powers, duties or liabilities under or in connection with an LSC occupational pension scheme,
	(c) provide for the winding up of an LSC occupational pension scheme,
	(d) provide for references to one LSC occupational pension scheme in a document, including an enactment, to have effect as references to another, and
	(e) include consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory and saving provision.
	(3) A scheme under this paragraph may in particular amend or otherwise modify—
	(a) the trust deed of an LSC occupational pension scheme,
	(b) rules of an LSC occupational pension scheme, and
	(c) any other instrument relating to the constitution, management or operation of an LSC occupational pension scheme.
	(4) A scheme under this paragraph must ensure that the merger of the LSC occupational pension schemes does not, to any extent, deprive members of the LSC occupational pension schemes, or other beneficiaries under those schemes, of rights that accrue to them under those schemes before the merger takes effect.
	(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), a scheme under this paragraph has effect in spite of any provision (of any nature) which would otherwise prevent the merger of the LSC occupational pension schemes.
	(6) In this paragraph—
	“LSC occupational pension scheme” means an occupational pension scheme under which—
	(a) the LSC has rights, powers, duties or liabilities, or(b) the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State has rights, powers, duties or liabilities by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 4(3);
	“occupational pension scheme” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.’.
	Amendment 137,page133,line3, leave out ‘or transitional’ and insert ‘transitional, transitory or saving’.
	Amendment 66,page133,line3, after ‘with’, insert ‘—
	(a) ’.
	Amendment 67,page133,line4, after ‘by’, insert ‘this Schedule’.
	Amendment 68,page133,line4, after ‘or’, insert—
	(b) schemes made’.
	Amendment 138,page133,line7, leave out from ‘Schedule’ to end of line 8.—(Mr Djanogly.)

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Consequential amendments

Amendment made: 19,page144,line31, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) In Schedule 26, paragraph 51.’. 
		
	
	—(Mr Djanogly.)

Clause 41
	 — 
	Conditional fee agreements: success fees

Andy Slaughter: I beg to move amendment 21,page29,line6, leave out Clause 41.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 150,in clause 41, page29,line36, at end insert—
	‘(4A) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to proceedings which include a claim for damages for loss or bodily injury resulting from exposure to a harmful substance or process where the claim is made against a person who—
	(a) carries on business in more than one country, or
	(b) owns (wholly or partly) one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.’.
	Amendment 164,in clause 41, page29,line36, at end insert—
	‘(4A) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—
	(a) any proceedings in relation to a claim for—
	(i) libel,
	(ii) slander,
	(iii) misuse of private information;
	(b) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which sub-paragraph (a) refers.’.
	Amendment 163,in clause 41, page29,line41, at end insert—
	‘(7) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—
	(a) any proceedings based on a claim of defamation; or
	(b) any proceedings based on a claim of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or
	(c) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which paragraphs (a) or (b) refer.’.
	Amendment 22,page31,line1, leave out clause 43.
	Amendment 151,in clause 43, page31,line45, at end insert—
	‘(6) This section does not apply in relation to a costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings which include a claim for damages for loss or bodily injury resulting from exposure to a harmful substance or process where the claim is made against a person who—
	(a) carries on business in more than one country, or
	(b) owns (wholly or partly) one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.’.
	Amendment 165,in clause 43, page32,line4, at end insert—
	‘(4) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings in a cause of action in relation to a claim for—
	(a) libel,
	(b) slander,
	(c) misuse of private information.’.
	Amendment 72,page32,line5, leave out clause 44.
	New clause 39—Road traffic accident pre-action protocol—
	‘(1) The Table in Rule 45.29 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) (Amount of fixed costs under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents) is amended as follows.
	(2) The figure for Stage 1 shall be £200.
	(3) The figure for Stage 2 shall be £400.
	(4) The figure for Stage 3 for Type A fixed costs shall be £125.
	(5) The figure for Stage 3 for Type B fixed costs shall be £125.
	(6) Any further amendment to the Table shall not be made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee but may be made by the Lord Chancellor by rules made by statutory instrument and may not be made until a draft of the rules has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

Andy Slaughter: This is an important group of amendments to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with a complex and vital area of access to justice. Because there are only 20 minutes left to debate this group, and I want to be fair to the Minister and give him 10 minutes to reply, I shall speak quickly in the hope of getting through the main part of my argument. I should make it clear at the outset that I wish to press to a vote amendment 21, which would undo the destruction of conditional fee agreements that the Government are pushing through in the Bill. I also ask, with the leave of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the lead signatory to amendment 163, that we press that amendment to a vote.
	Conditional fee agreements, also known as no win, no fee agreements, were brought in by a Conservative Government to preserve access to justice for those on moderate means at a time when vast areas were being removed from the scope of legal aid and eligibility criteria were being removed. The provisions were amended, with a remarkable lack of contention from the Conservative Opposition, in the Access to Justice Act 1999, to create their modern form.
	The idea of contingency fee agreements was to create a viable market in legal services by introducing success fees paid by losing defendants—wrongdoers, in other words—to compensate lawyers for the cases that they lost, for which, of course, they received no fees. For lawyers, that form of payment by results meant not that they would take on spurious cases, but that they were allowed to take on cases that might be 75:25 or 50:50. That has created a system that works, for the main part, very well. It has created a viable market in legal services and permitted access to justice for millions since it was introduced.
	What sort of people have availed themselves of contingency fee agreements? More than half of those who have used them have had an income below £25,000 a year and only 18% have had an income of more than £40,000 a year. Government Members carp on about footballers and models using them, but the average claimant is the average constituent.
	How do the Government’s proposals work? First, winning claimants will lose. Victims will have to pay the costs of their insurance and their lawyer’s success fees from their damages—up to 25% of damages, aside from damages for future care, can be taken by the lawyer, and the insurance premium will take up even more of those damages, perhaps wiping them out altogether. To make up for part of those losses, the Government plan a 10% increase in damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Simple maths should be sufficient to show that that will not make up for all losses.
	Losing claimants, including those bringing speculative and nuisance claims, will gain. They will benefit because it is unlikely that they will have to pay the costs of the winning defendant—that is part of the perverse, qualified one-way cost-shifting scheme that the Government intend to introduce when the Bill passes.
	Losing defendants—wrongdoers, in other words—and their insurers will gain. Wrongdoers will benefit, because they do not have to pay the cost of after-the-event insurance or the victim’s lawyer’s success fees, thus limiting their liabilities and those of their insurers. Winning defendants will lose out. A winning defendant will no longer be able to reclaim the cost of their defence, thanks to qualified one-way cost shifting. To summarise, winners lose and losers win. That is simply wrong.
	There was a time when the Conservative party worried about access to justice, but now it appears to be nothing more than the parliamentary wing of the insurance lobby, which according to an investigation by The Guardian has donated £4.9 million to the Tories since the Prime Minister became leader.
	I have spent the past few months speaking to victims who have used contingency fee agreements to get justice. I have heard them tell me how our justice system helped them, and their fears that others who suffer in future will not get the help they need. A number of areas of law will be badly—

Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Slaughter: I would love to give way to the Secretary of State, but I have very little time—[ Interruption. ] If I have time at the end I will do so.
	A number of areas of law will be badly affected by this legislation, and I should like briefly to touch on a few of them—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”]

Kenneth Clarke: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had to be bullied to give way to me, but there we are. I do not want him to exaggerate his case. No win, no fee was introduced by the Major Government and worked perfectly satisfactorily until the previous Government amended it. We are talking about how much winning lawyers are paid. The principles of access to justice and of no win, no fee are agreed on a bipartisan basis. They are not threatened at all by the Bill.

Andy Slaughter: I began my speech by informing the house how contingency fee agreements came about. Because the Secretary of State has merely repeated that, I will penalise the Minister by taking a minute off his time.
	The Secretary of State believes that there are faults in the current system whereby lawyers are unjustly enriched—he may be right, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I, and many other hon. Members, would probably agree with him—but let us cure those faults. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Chris Bryant: Some categories of proceedings are particularly expensive to advance, yet lead to relatively minor awards. For instance, the largest award in a privacy case is £60,000, and below that, £13,000. The vast majority of libel cases end up with awards of less than £100,000. The problem is that in those cases, families such as the Dowlers, and people such as Christopher Jefferies, who was on the radio this morning, would have no chance of access to justice.

Andy Slaughter: That is why I will be very pleased to support amendment 163, which is in my hon. Friend’s name. As I have indicated, there are some cases—libel is a good example—when damages are small, but the defamation is important. Under the Secretary of State’s scheme, more than the sum of the damages could therefore be taken in fees.
	Let me go through other areas of law, and I will come to privacy at the end if I have time. On clinical negligence, it is unavoidable that there will be good and bad doctors, just as there are good and bad in any profession. It is just and proper that compensation is paid to anyone harmed as a result of inaction, negligence or incompetence when a medical professional fails to live up to their obligations. I say that despite the fact that when the Secretary of State gave the figures, he conflated the cost of damages, claimant costs and defendant costs and pretended that they were a cost figure in themselves, for which he had to make another apology to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan).
	On professional negligence, taking on a professional is always risky. No one knows the system better. People are never 100% likely to win such cases. Without success fees to compensate for the risk, many such cases will not be brought in future. So who will lose out? It will be the first-time home buyer whose surveyor negligently fails to spot subsidence, the pensioner whose financial adviser negligently makes a high-risk investment, the hard-working small businessman whose accountant negligently fails to prepare accounts and lands him with a huge tax bill that he cannot pay, and the bereaved family whose probate solicitor takes three years to deal with the case and then charges huge fees. Those are the kinds of case that our constituents experience.
	Business and human rights cases perhaps highlight the problems even more starkly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) has tabled an amendment, which I fear she will not have time to speak to, that addresses precisely this issue. It is backed by Amnesty International, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Friends of the Earth and Martyn Day of Leigh Day and Co., who brought Trafigura to justice on behalf of 30,000 Côte d’Ivoirians who were poisoned by toxic waste.
	I move on to employers’ liability and breach of duty by an employer. We have created some of the safest workplaces in the world in Britain, and our incidence of accidents at work is among the lowest in the world. That is thanks in large part to the labour and trade union movement, which has made it a priority over the past 100 years. In one fell swoop, victims will have their rights taken away and employers will be incentivised to act negligently and capriciously.
	Insolvency practitioners—for whom even Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service are lobbying for an exemption—have told us that they will not be able to bring cases. Given that HMRC is the largest creditor, with 25% of all unsecured credit, the public purse will lose out by up to £200 million a year. It will actually cost us money to enact the Bill.
	I will move on to industrial diseases. The Association of British Insurers, an organisation that the Minister knows well and has met many times, is still obstructing victims of pleural plaques to try to avoid paying out. In the Insurance Times, it described a recent ruling in favour of victims of pleural plaques as a “disappointment”.
	Finally, in the minute or two I have left, I turn to privacy cases and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. No one can forget the case of Milly Dowler. It remains a great source of anger throughout the country. When we heard that the phones of Milly’s parents, Bob and Sally, had been hacked by News International, we were all rightly outraged. We often hear about rich and powerful people having their privacy or reputation trashed by the press. However, there are thousands of cases that happen quietly to weak, vulnerable people who are exploited for cheap and tawdry scandal. Their only recourse is through the courts, and the only means to achieve justice is no win, no fee. The Dowlers bravely put their case to the Prime Minister. Without no win, no fee, they could never have taken on the leviathan of News International.
	I will quote briefly from the Dowlers’ letter to the Prime Minister:
	“What helped was the fact that we would be insured if we lost a case and the premium…would be taken from the other side if we won. Without that we would not have been able to start a case or even threaten it.
	We were lucky that we fell under that system. We understand that the new law will affect thousands of people who want to sue News International and other newspapers. We had understood that you were on the side of the people not the press. Please do not change the law so that the ability to sue the papers is lost.”
	They end by saying:
	“We are sure you do not want to go down in history as the Prime Minister who took rights away from ordinary people”.
	I put those comments to the Minister and the Secretary of State today. That is the question being asked of us. Do we want to go down as the Parliament that took rights away from ordinary people so that large companies could break the law and behave as they like, without people being able to challenge them?
	Part 2 of the Bill is appalling. Access to justice is being destroyed. When the Minister challenged me earlier and said that I was talking about part 2 during our discussion of part 1, as so often he missed the point.

Ben Wallace: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Chris Bryant: You are the Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Ben Wallace: PPSs are allowed to make points of order. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill Opposition Front Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), have made points about the perceived failure of Government Front Benchers to declare their interests. However, the hon. Gentleman has failed to point out that on 119 separate occasions the Labour party has received donations from lawyers who make their money from success fees.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is not a point of order and the matter was dealt with earlier in the week. Let us have no more of that.

Andy Slaughter: Let me just say that if the Government start talking about conflicts of interest on this Bill, they will open a Pandora’s box.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not going to open Pandora’s box. We are going to deal with the amendments before us.

Andy Slaughter: I was not talking about the Minister; I was talking about the Bill. I am not surprised that the Minister’s PPS is embarrassed by the Bill, after sitting through our proceedings in Committee.
	The common link between parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is the destruction of access to justice in a way that we have not seen since the introduction of legal aid by a Labour Government after the second world war. The insurance industry is being given one of the biggest pay-offs in history which, as we know from experience, will go into the pockets of their directors and shareholders. While other aspects of this Bill display the startling incompetence of this Government, none shows their intent more truly than the provisions in part 2, which would give the whip hand to large public and private corporations, while taking rights away from ordinary people. What is the point in having rights if they cannot be enforced?
	I ask the Liberal Democrats to look at amendment 21, which would deal with cases such as Trafigura and pleural plaques, and amendment 163, which would deal with cases such as that of Milly Dowler, and join us in the Lobby tonight.

Jonathan Djanogly: Amendments 21, 22, 72, 163, 164 and 165 all seek to undermine a fundamental element of the package of reform of civil litigation funding and costs based on the report prepared on behalf of the judiciary by Sir Rupert Jackson and now included in this Bill—the abolition of recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums. I must say that I am rather perplexed by the amendments as in Committee the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) agreed that the intention of part 2 is
	“perfectly sound, and it is one with which we have a great deal of sympathy.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 13 September 2011; c. 501.]
	I will also deal with new clause 39, which is on the related but slightly separate matter of recoverable costs for low-value road traffic accident claims.
	It is worth emphasising, as the Justice Secretary has just said, that we are not proposing to end conditional fee agreements or no win, no fee deals. What we are
	addressing is the substantial legal costs that go to lawyers under the current no win, no fee regime. Our reforms are designed to make these legal costs more proportionate, while enabling meritorious claims to be brought. This applies equally to defamation and privacy claims and multinational claims as to other categories of case, but it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the disproportionate costs that have arisen and that emphasise the need for our reforms across the board.

Chris Bryant: The Minister referred specifically to defamation and privacy cases. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases—and in every single instance case in privacy cases—the awards are so small that if there is no success fee, it will be completely uneconomic for a lawyer to come forward with a CFA. That may not be the Minister’s intention—I take him at his word—but the effect will be to stop CFAs in libel, defamation and privacy cases.

Jonathan Djanogly: In some cases, where the balance is against, that perhaps should be the case. In Naomi Campbell’s defamation case against the Daily Mirror, she received damages of £3,500 but the total costs exceeded £1 million.
	In relation to clinical negligence claims, which can of course include substantial damages in catastrophic injury cases, lawyers’ costs are about half of the total damages that are paid out. In 2009-10, for example, the NHS paid out £297 million in damages and £121 million in legal costs, over half of which were no win, no fee costs. One of the leading no win, no fee cases against a multinational company is that against Trafigura. In that case, the claimants’ legal costs were more than £100 million, but the damages recovered were only £30 million. As a result, 30,000 claimants in the Ivory Coast received damages of an average of only £1,000.

Lisa Nandy: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: I will not—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
	It is these high legal costs which led to Sir Rupert Jackson’s review. Specifically in relation to defamation and privacy, it is these high legal costs which led to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), when he was Justice Secretary, seeking to introduce similar changes to those we are now proposing to reduce excessive legal costs, but he mistakenly limited them only to defamation and privacy cases. In effect, that is the exact opposite of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) proposes in his amendment. The sands seem to have been shifting dramatically in the Labour camp on this issue.
	New clause 39, tabled by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, would reduce the amount of fixed recoverable fees on the pre-action protocol for low-value road traffic accidents in the light of the impact of the ban on referral fees. The Department is now reviewing the situation, but to achieve this outcome does not require primary legislation. Instead, a reduction can be implemented through changes to the Civil Procedure Rules. I can give the commitment that we are looking at this. Indeed, my officials plan to consult on appropriate changes to the level of recoverable costs, and any changes will be placed before the Committee for approval. I can also
	tell him that I do not intend to go to all the trouble of stopping referral fees being paid to claims management companies, only to see those same fees staying with the lawyers rather than going back to consumers in lower insurance premiums or prices in the shops.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the Minister for those undertakings.

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall take each amendment in turn. Amendment 21 would remove clause 41, the effect of which is to amend the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 so that success fees under a conditional fee agreement will no longer be recoverable from a losing party in any civil proceedings. Amendment 22 would remove clause 43. I should make it clear that we have listened carefully to specific concerns about the abolition of recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums in clinical negligence claims and the impact it would have on funding expert reports. Such reports, which can be expensive, are often necessary in establishing whether there is a case for commencing proceedings, which raises particular issues if recoverability of ATE insurance is abolished. In responding to these concerns, clause 43 provides, by way of exception, for the recoverability of premiums in respect of ATE insurance taken out to cover the cost of expert reports in clinical negligence cases.
	Amendment 72 would remove clause 44, which abolishes the recoverability of the costs incurred by membership organisations, such as trade unions, of insuring themselves against the risk of paying costs to another party in the event of losing a claim. I strongly believe that the abolition of recoverability should apply equally to the arrangements for membership organisations in order to maintain a level playing field. Amendments 150 and 151 seek to allow the recoverability of success fees and ATE insurance premiums from a losing party in certain claims for damages against a person who carries on business in more than one country or who owns one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.

Lisa Nandy: Will the Minister give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: We understand that these amendments seek to protect the rights of individuals—[Hon. Members: “Go on. Give way.”] Oh, all right. How can I resist?

Lisa Nandy: I thank the Minister for finally recognising just how strongly so many of us on both sides of the House feel about this issue and how unfortunate it is that we have not been able to make the case today. Unfortunately, we have not had sufficient answers to make Members on both sides of the House feel that these cases will be able to continue. Will he therefore agree to meet a cross-party group of us before the Bill is sent to the other place, so that e can make at least make our case before the Bill becomes law?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I have met the Corporate Responsibility Coalition—CORE—and the solicitors who acted for Trafigura. I have acted for a number of people, and of course I shall be prepared and happy to receive additional representations from her.
	We understand that the amendments seek to protect the rights of individuals in developing countries to claim damages against large multinational companies, but the amendments go much wider than that, and would provide that a losing defendant should pay the success fee and ATE insurance premium based on whether it is a multinational company, regardless of the nature of the claim or status of the claimant.
	Given the concerns that I have been raising in relation to cases brought by claimants in developing countries, I shall concentrate my response on those cases. The amendments are neither necessary nor appropriate. The Government believe that it will still be possible to bring claims against multinational companies, once our CFA reforms are implemented, but—this is one of the major reasons for our reforms overall—we believe that the costs involved will be more proportionate to the sums in issue. What the proposals in the Bill seek to address is not the validity of the claims, but the iniquity of a system that can allow such disproportionate costs. It is worth emphasising that the current system of recoverable success fees and recoverable ATE insurance premiums, with the consequences for high civil costs, is not seen in any other jurisdiction in the world. CFAs will continue to be available, but the Bill also extends the funding options. The Government seek to allow damages-based agreements to be used for the first time to fund such claims. Group actions in particular are suited to DBAs, as legal representatives may recover their fees as a percentage of the damages awarded to each successful claimant.
	Amendments 163, 164 and 165 seek to ensure that success fees continue to be recoverable in defamation and privacy claims. The Government are aware of concerns about access to justice and the ability of those with modest means to pursue claims, often against powerful organisations. I am aware that there are slight definitional differences, which I will not go into. However, all hon. Members will be aware of one of the most high-profile cases, involving the Dowler family, who were successful in their claim against News International.
	Deba te interrupted (Programme Order ,  31 October ).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:

Ayes 223, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	Amendment proposed: 163,page29,line41, at end insert—
	‘(7) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—
	(a) any proceedings based on a claim of defamation; or
	(b) any proceedings based on a claim of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or
	(c) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which paragraphs (a) or (b) refer.’.—(Chris Bryant.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 222, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 65
	 — 
	Overseas community orders and service community orders

Amendments made: 75,page47,line36, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 322 of that Act (financial penalty enforcement orders), in the definition of “financial penalty” in subsection (4), after “including” insert “a fine imposed by the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court under paragraph 10(1)(aa) of Schedule 8 to the 2003 Act by virtue of section 184 and Part 2 of Schedule 5 (breach etc of overseas community order) or”.’.
	Amendment 76,page48,line2, at end insert—
	‘( ) Part 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act (breach, revocation and amendment of overseas community orders) is amended as follows.’.
	Amendment 77,page48,line3, leave out from ‘In’ to ‘paragraph’ in line 4.
	Amendment 78,page48,line6, at end insert—
	‘( ) After paragraph 14 insert—
	14A (1) The following provisions apply where the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court imposes a fine under paragraph 10(1)(aa) of that Schedule as applied by this Part of this Schedule.
	(2) Section 251 of this Act (power to order payment of fine by instalments) applies in relation to the fine as it applies in relation to a fine imposed by a court for a service offence.
	(3) Where the offender is aged under 18 when the fine is imposed and has a service parent or service guardian (within the meaning of section 268 of this Act), subsections (2) to (4) of that section (payment of fine by service parent or service guardian) apply in relation to the fine as they apply in relation to a fine imposed in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of that section.
	(4) In the application of subsection (2) of section 268 by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph, the reference in that subsection to the time of conviction is to be read as a reference to the time the fine is imposed.
	(5) Section 269(2) of this Act (power of court to make financial statement order before making order under section 268) does not apply in relation to an order under section 268 which is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph.”’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 96
	 — 
	Further release after recall

Amendments made: 3,page75,line16, leave out ‘Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000’ and insert ‘Sentencing Act’.
	Amendment 4,page75,line19, leave out
	‘Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000)’ and insert ‘Sentencing Act)’.
	Amendment 5,page75,line37, leave out ‘recommends’ and insert ‘directs’.
	Amendment 6, page 75, line 39, leave out ‘recommendation’ and insert ‘direction’.
	Amendment 7,page76,line32, leave out ‘recommends’ and insert ‘directs’.
	Amendment 8, page 76, line 34, leave out ‘recommendation’ and insert ‘direction’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 98
	 — 
	miscellaneous amendments relating to release and recall

Amendment made: 9,page79,line39at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 256(1) (review by the Board)—
	(a) for “recommend” substitute “direct”;
	(b) for “recommendation” substitute “direction”.
	( ) In section 256A (further review)—
	(a) in subsection (4)(a), for “recommending” substitute “directing”;
	(b) in subsection (4)(c), for “recommendation” substitute “direction”;
	(c) in subsection (5), for “recommendation” (in both places) substitute “direction”.’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 104
	 — 
	Transfer of prisoners: prosecution of other offences

Amendments made: 28,page86,line5, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 29,page86,line25, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 30,page86,line30, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 31,page86, leave out lines 41 and 42.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 105
	 — 
	Transit of prisoners

Amendments made: 32,page87,line12, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 33,page87,line27, after ‘6B’ insert ‘, 6BA’.
	Amendment 34,page87,line30, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 35,page87,line33, leave out ‘transported’ and insert ‘taken’.
	Amendment 36,page87,line33, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 37,page87,line37, at end insert—
	‘(a) the Scottish Ministers, in a case where it is proposed that the person who is the subject of a request under subsection (1)(b) will, whilst in transit—
	(i) be present only in Scotland, or
	(ii) arrive in Scotland before being taken to another part of Great Britain;’.
	Amendment 38,page87, leave out lines 38 to 41.
	Amendment 39,page87, leave out lines 43 and 44.
	Amendment 40,page87,line45, leave out ‘section 6B’ and insert ‘sections 6B and 6BA’.
	Amendment 41,page88,line1, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 42,page88,line2, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 43,page88,line13, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 44,page88,line17, at end insert—
	‘(5A) A constable may search a person who is the subject of a transit order, and any item in the possession of that person, for any item which that person might use—
	(a) to cause physical injury to that person or to any other person; or
	(b) to assist that person to escape from detention.
	(5B) The power conferred by subsection (5A) does not authorise a constable to require a person to remove any clothing other than an outer coat, jacket, headgear or gloves.
	(5C) The power conferred by subsection (5A) includes power to use reasonable force where necessary.
	(5D) A constable searching a person in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (5A) may seize any item found if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person searched might use the item —
	(a) to cause physical injury to that person or to any other person; or
	(b) to assist that person to escape from detention.
	(5E) Any item seized from a person under subsection (5D) may be retained while that person is in transit.’.
	Amendment 45,page88, leave out lines 18 to 22 insert—
	‘(6) In this section “constable” means—
	(a) any person who is a constable in any part of Great Britain or who has, under any enactment (including subsection (4) above), the powers of a constable in any part of Great Britain, or
	(b) any person who is a prison officer within the meaning of section 117(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
	(7) A person who is a constable by virtue of subsection (6)(a) has, for the purposes of section 6A, this section and section 6BA, all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable in any part of Great Britain in which a person who is the subject of a transit order is for the time being.’.
	Amendment 46,page88,line22, at end insert—
	6BA Transit through different parts of Great Britain
	(1) Where the Scottish Ministers issue a transit order and it is proposed that the person who is the subject of the order will be taken to a part of Great Britain other than Scotland whilst in transit, they must notify the Secretary of State.
	(2) The Scottish Ministers need not notify the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State has agreed in writing to the transit order.
	(3) Unless the Secretary of State agrees in writing to the transit order, that order authorises the detention of the person subject to it in Scotland only.
	(4) But where the person escapes or is unlawfully at large, the order also authorises—
	(a) the arrest of the person under section 6B(5) in a part of Great Britain other than Scotland, and
	(b) the detention of the person in that part by a constable (within the meaning of that section) for the purpose of taking the person to Scotland.
	(5) Where the Secretary of State issues a transit order and it is proposed that the person who is the subject of the order will be taken to Scotland whilst in transit, the Secretary of State must notify the Scottish Ministers.
	(6) The Secretary of State need not notify the Scottish Ministers where the Scottish Ministers have agreed in writing to the transit order.
	(7) Unless the Scottish Ministers agree in writing to the transit order, that order authorises the detention of the person subject to it only in a part of Great Britain other than Scotland.
	(8) But where the person escapes or is unlawfully at large, the order also authorises—
	(a) the arrest of the person under section 6B(5) in Scotland, and
	(b) the detention of the person in Scotland by a constable (within the meaning of that section) for the purpose of taking the person to a part of Great Britain other than Scotland.’.
	Amendment 47,page88,line34, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 48,page88,line37, leave out ‘the relevant area’ and insert ‘Great Britain’.
	Amendment 49,page88,line38, at end insert—
	‘(3) In this section “constable” means any person who is a constable in any part of Great Britain or who has, under any enactment (including section 6B(4) above), the powers of a constable in any part of Great Britain.
	(4) A person who is a constable by virtue of subsection (3) has for the purposes of this section all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable in the part of Great Britain in which the person mentioned in subsection (2) is for the time being.’.
	Amendment 50,page88,line38, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 9 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (short title, commencement and extent)—
	(a) at the beginning of subsection (3) insert “Subject to subsection (3A),”, and
	(b) after that subsection insert—
	(3A) Sections 3A and 6A to 6C extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 113
	 — 
	Offences of threatening with article with blade or point
	 — 
	or offensive weapon in public or on school premises

Amendments made: 154,page93,line41, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 94 and insert—
	‘(5) Where a person aged 16 or over is convicted of an offence under this section, the court must impose an appropriate custodial sentence (with or without a fine) unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which—
	(a) relate to the offence or to the offender, and
	(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.
	(5A) In this section “appropriate custodial sentence” means—
	(a) in the case of a person who is aged 18 or over when convicted, a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months;
	(b) in the case of a person who is aged at least 16 but under 18 when convicted, a detention and training order of at least 4 months.
	(5B) In considering whether it is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (5) in the case of a person aged under 18, the court must have regard to its duty under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.”’.
	Amendment 155,page94,line10, leave out ‘(5)’ and insert ‘(5A)(a)’.
	Amendment 156,page95,line1, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 and insert—
	‘(7) Where a person aged 16 or over is convicted of an offence under this section, the court must impose an appropriate custodial sentence (with or without a fine) unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which—
	(a) relate to the offence or to the offender, and
	(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.
	(7A) In this section “appropriate custodial sentence” means—
	(a) in the case of a person who is aged 18 or over when convicted, a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months;
	(b) in the case of a person who is aged at least 16 but under 18 when convicted, a detention and training order of at least 4 months.
	(7B) In considering whether it is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (7) in the case of a person aged under 18, the court must have regard to its duty under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.”’.
	Amendment 157,page95,line12, leave out ‘(7)’ and insert ‘(7A)(a)’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 115
	 — 
	Power to make consequential and supplementary provision etc.

Amendments made: 133,page96,line13, leave out ‘or transitional’ and insert ‘transitional, transitory or saving’.
	Amendment 134,page96,line14, leave out ‘Parts 1 to 3 of’.
	Amendment 135,page96,line16, leave out from ‘legislation’ to end of line 17.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 118
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made: 51,page97,line13, leave out ‘Section 114 extends’ and insert ‘The following provisions extend’.
	Amendment 52,page97,line13, at end insert ‘—
	(a) sections104 and105, and
	(b) section114.’.
	Amendment 53,page97,line17, leave out from ‘32,’ to end of line 18.
	Amendment 54,page97,line17, after ‘32,’ insert—
	‘() section [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources] and Schedule [Northern Ireland: information about financial resources],
	() sections38 to40,’.
	Amendment 136,page97,line24, at end insert—
	‘( ) Subsection (5) does not apply to section [Reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc] (which extends to England and Wales only).’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Schedule 14
	 — 
	Application of sections 90 to 100 and transitional and transitory provisions

Amendment made: 20,page185,line12, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—(Mr Blunt.)

Schedule 17
	 — 
	Knives and offensive weapons: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: 158,page195,line34, at end insert—
	10A In section 100 (offenders under 18: detention and training orders) after subsection (1) insert—
	(1A) Subsection (1) applies with the omission of paragraph (b) in the case of an offence the sentence for which falls to be imposed under these provisions—
	(a) section 1A of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (threatening with weapon in public);
	(b) section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (threatening with article with blade or point or offensive weapon).”’.
	Amendment 159,page196,line24, leave out ‘1A(5)’ and insert ‘1A(5A)(a)’.
	Amendment 160,page196,line27, leave out ‘139AA(7)’ and insert ‘139AA(7A)(a)’.
	Amendment 161,page196,line27, at end insert—
	‘(4) In the case of an offence the sentence for which falls to be imposed under a provision mentioned in subsection (5), nothing in that provision prevents the court from imposing any sentence that it considers appropriate after taking into account any matter referred to in subsection (1) of this section.
	(5) The provisions referred to in subsection (4) are—
	section 1A(5A)(b) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953;
	section 139AA(7A)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”’.—(Mr Blunt.)
	Title
	Amendments made: 139,line3 after ‘proceedings;’ insert ‘to make provision about referral fees in connection with the provision of legal services;’.
	Amendment 140,line10 at end insert
	‘; to create a new offence relating to squatting’.
	Amendment 141,line10 at end insert
	‘; and to amend section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008’.—(Mr Blunt.)
	Third Reading

Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	At the conclusion of many hours of copious debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee, I pay tribute to members of the Bill team from my Department, who have been working throughout on this marathon Bill, and to my two colleagues, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) who, I am glad to say, carried the burden of the day in Committee and most of it on Report as well. I am grateful to them all.
	It is an enormous Bill representing a major reform of the criminal justice system and the justice system generally. It is overdue and the Government have made a good start on sorting out some of the problems facing the justice system. I shall mention briefly the legal aid reforms, which have been debated again today. They are extremely important. They make substantial savings and I acknowledge that we have had to make some difficult choices.
	I am a lawyer and I have many friends who are practising lawyers. When I was given this post, I wondered whether I would retain any friends in the legal profession by the time we got to Christmas. I am glad to say that I have, but some difficult decisions have been taken at the expense of some members of the profession, who have already suffered reductions in their fees as a result of the previous Government’s changes, and have probably had a bigger reduction in their fee income, I concede, than almost any other group in the country. So let us acknowledge that there are people facing consequences as a result of what we have done, but it was much overdue.
	We have, as we keep saying, the most expensive legal aid system in the world. It has gone far beyond what could be afforded. The previous Government made repeated attempts to reform it and kept consulting on reforms and making changes. Even then they found, by the end of their period of office, that real-terms spending on legal aid had gone up quite substantially, compared with when they took office.
	What we have done is not just a cheese-paring exercise across the whole field of legal aid. We have gone back to first principles and asked what is essential that the
	taxpayer pays for to assure access to justice on truly important matters for that section of society that must have access to justice in the public interest, so that we can all be assured that people get the protections that they are entitled to under our constitution. That is what we have debated, one by one.
	I believe that the package that we have come up with will make substantial savings. As I was saying to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) a few moments ago, the idea that we are launching some assault on access to justice and depriving people of access to justice is nonsense. We are not affecting the right. There is no change in the Bill to any particular course of action. Legal aid is available, but it is available to the poorest people for those really essential matters that affect their life, liberty, home and so on, and we have got it back under control.

Amber Rudd: I know that the Secretary of State is aware of my concerns regarding the advice agencies that provide such vital support to the vulnerable, and I know that additional money has been provided for those agencies. May I press him to give us more detail about this so that we can be reassured that those advice agencies, such as my own in Hastings, will be able to continue their good work?

Kenneth Clarke: Those who can remember Second Reading will know that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon and I kept stressing that we accept the need to maintain the funding for many voluntary agencies, particularly citizens advice bureaux, which give not only legal advice, but general advice to people suffering from problems of debt, housing and so on, which we all know are bound to get worse in these rather difficult times. A total of £20 million has been allocated to these bodies this year and we are looking ahead at how to continue that support.
	I should point out that our legal aid changes will not take effect for a couple of years, so none of those bodies has lost any legal aid funding at the moment. What we are doing is finding money to make up for reductions in grant to those bodies that are largely from local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) is about to announce how we will distribute the £20 million. I know that he is in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and expects to be able to make the announcement imminently so that we can get on with that.
	I have left the debates on legal aid to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon because, as everyone has seen, he is a walking expert on the subject. There seemed to be no point in my taking part in debates on amendments and having to turn to him if a particularly difficult question was asked. However, I have been present throughout the debates and listening to how Labour Members have tackled the matter. They seem to have lost all touch with common sense. When in government they were reducing expenditure on legal aid, or trying to and failing. In their manifesto they committed to reducing spending on legal aid, stating:
	“we will find greater savings in legal aid.”
	As recently as January this year the leader of the Labour party said, in relation to reductions in legal aid:
	“Labour has shown it is ready to make difficult cuts that we believe are necessary for the long term health of our economy.”
	As far as we can work out, the various amendments tabled by the Labour party in the course of our debates on the Bill would add £245 million to the legal aid bill, compared with the Government’s proposals.

Helen Goodman: Evidently, some of the amendments we tabled were not reported to the Secretary of State, because we also tabled amendments intended to speed up the collection of fines, on which the Ministry does not have a good record.

Kenneth Clarke: We are tackling the collection of fines vigorously, but I am afraid that the idea that the Labour party’s amendments on the collection of fines would make any significant contribution to the monstrous hypothetical bill it was running up is ludicrous.

Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Kenneth Clarke: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must press on. Other Members wish to speak and I do not want to take up all the time.
	I will turn to the sentencing provisions. We have gone through major reforms in sentencing that contain many common sense measures, which have not been debated much but which are intended to simplify the system and give greater professional discretion in many cases. The biggest controversy has concerned the repeal of indeterminate sentences, which was accepted very readily by most Members yesterday. That is a much overdue reform. The introduction of indeterminate sentences never worked as people intended. It was a major mistake and a major blot on our justice system that would not have survived challenge in either the British courts or in Strasbourg if it had carried on much longer. We have put in place a system of long determinate sentences for the most serious criminals, which I think gives protection.
	We have not debated the other difficult area, knife crime, over which there was some controversy. The Government are determined to get the message clearly across to the public that knife crime will not be tolerated. We wish to stop people believing that knife crime will not be punished properly in the criminal justice system. For that reason, we tabled proposals introducing a mandatory sentence of six months for adults who are guilty of threatening with a knife in circumstances where it might cause physical injury, which is a new offence we have created. That is in line with the six months already specified in the sentencing guidelines for that kind of offence, but it makes it clear that that sentence should normally be expected automatically for that offence, unless it would otherwise be unjust to do so.
	Amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and by the Opposition seeking to extend that proposal to juveniles. I am glad to say that, following discussions with my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)—the latter is a
	Parliamentary Private Secretary and so cannot table amendments—we finally agreed, that as 30-odd Back Benchers supported the amendments, to introduce a mandatory offence for 16 and 17-year-olds. Again, that sounds rather formidable, because I am not very keen on mandatory sentences for juveniles, but the offence is very serious, and it is only for 16 and 17-year-olds and—

Geoffrey Cox: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: I will in just a second.
	The offence also confirms that the court, at the same time, will have to have regard to the duties under the Children Acts, which mean—

Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, if the Secretary of State will just hold on. Point of order, Mr Tom Clarke.

Tom Clarke: rose—

Mr Speaker: I hope it is.

Tom Clarke: CBE, Sir.
	Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, you could not be here earlier, when again, again and again I asked Ministers to give way. Is there something in “Erskine May” which says, “You don’t give way to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill”?

Mr Speaker: No. It is uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman to be suffering from a persecution complex, and I hope that it will not be repeated. He is just unlucky today.

Tom Clarke: I was about to give way to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), but I have the highest regard for the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), whom I have known for years, and this is the first time that I have rebuffed him, so I will give way, as he insists. He is obviously getting worried about this.

Tom Clarke: rose—

Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what he wished to intervene on?

Tom Clarke: I recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s reference to the junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), and his walking intelligence and so on. All I have tried to do through my interventions is to secure what non-governmental organisations and aid agencies want to hear regarding amendments 150 and 151, and to find out the Government’s attitude to British and international firms that are involved in abuses overseas.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the Trafigura case a moment ago, but we do not believe that our changes to the no win, no fee system will prevent access to justice. Only a few moments ago we heard my hon. Friend point out that, even in the Trafigura case, the millions of pounds paid to the lawyers far exceeded the millions of pounds paid to the claimants. The average citizen of the Ivory Coast got £1,000 out of
	the action that was brought. We are not stopping the actions; we are getting the costs in proportion to the claim. All those disputes about legal aid and no win, no fee are not about access to justice; they are about the profitability of the actions for lawyers.
	I am a lawyer, and I have the highest respect for lawyers and no intention of offending the legal profession, but in the lobbying of this House and the upper House we have had an army of lawyers advancing behind a front of women and children—vulnerable claimants who they say would not be represented if they are not paid as much as they are now. I am afraid I do not believe that.
	The fact is that we introduced no win, no fee. These actions were brought because my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Mackay insisted on introducing no win, no fee to this country, and the system worked from the time of the Major Government perfectly well. The previous Government were persuaded to make it more profitable by making the changes that they made, but the costs have got out of all proportion to the claim.
	Let me turn to knife crime. There is a serious problem in Enfield, and I had discussions with my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North and for Enfield, Southgate because of that serious problem with knife crime. It exists throughout the country, but it is localised and can be very bad.

Nick de Bois: rose—

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend seeks to intervene. We reached agreement on the amendments that have now been made to the Bill at his instigation and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing this intervention. Does he agree that the important thing about the introduction of the measure to the Bill is that for the first time in youth sentencing services it is clear that, if a 16 or 17-year-old carries a knife and uses it in a threatening and endangering fashion, they will go to jail? Indeed, it sends a very strong message to the courts, so my constituents will rest a little easier when it is passed into law.

Tom Clarke: That is entirely true, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his advocacy, but we should both point out that we are talking about the minimum sentence. When we look at the nature of the offence we have created, we find that it is a serious knife offence, and many people—adults and juveniles—will be sent away for longer than the minimum that we specify in the Bill. The minimum catches people who might not otherwise have got a custodial sentence. In really serious cases, juveniles should get more than a four-month detention and training order and adults should get more than a six-month sentence, but there will be a spread of seriousness among individual cases. What we have put forward is a mandatory minimum; in the case of juveniles, my hon. Friend and I agree that it is right that the special way in which the courts treat offenders who are under 18 should be applied. That is where we are.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Tom Clarke: I am sorry but I shall not give way because other people want to speak.
	Let me conclude by going back to the Labour party. Obviously, I am familiar with our own proposals but I have been listening to what the Labour party has been putting forward, which tells us a lot about whether that party is ready for government. I have been facing the Labour movement for a very long time now—particularly the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, with whom I am familiar. I do not know what he thinks is happening to his party because the Opposition’s position on this has been pitched at a section of the tabloid press that I have never heard the Labour party aim at so far as they have been doing. I did not expect that from the shadow Justice Secretary. Let me quote from the BBC’s Politics Show on 31 October 2010—a year ago—when he said that he was “not going to say” that I am being
	“soft on crime…because he is asking the right questions about rehabilitation rates”.
	More recently, when he gave the Howard League lecture on 17 October 2011, he said:
	“Reforming prisons to reduce re-offending ultimately means safer communities up and down the country”.
	The Justice Secretary has made extraordinary proposals in relation to the Bill, the most preposterous of which were about knife crime. He tabled a new clause advocating mandatory sentences for 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15-year-olds. I never expected to see even the most reactionary of Labour Members—even the right hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett)—putting forward such a proposition. We cannot estimate how many schoolchildren would have been caught by such measures, but our best estimate is that about 350 would have had to be sent away. We would have had to build secure children’s homes to hold them and all the special provisions under the Children Acts would have been set aside. That was not a serious contribution to the debate, and serious contributions are what we should make.
	I think the Bill is balanced. As I have said, it has been attacked from the right and the left, and it will be scrutinised carefully in another place. I think we have started to redress some of the problems that the previous Government left behind. It is the inheritance of Tony Blair, a man whom I admire in many ways. By the time he had finished in office he was getting very keen on reforming public services such as health and education. In my modest opinion, he was very good on health and education by the time he finished, but he had no real interest in law and order and the criminal justice system.
	Tony Blair shadowed me when I was Home Secretary and he produced a good soundbite but no policy. He produced the phrase,
	“Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime,”
	but he did not know what he meant. He had no real interest in the subject and all he did was encourage the right hon. Members for Blackburn and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough to produce populist stuff that filled the statute book with quite useless criminal justice legislation. This is serious reform to what was caused by that Government, and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) who shadows me should look at his party’s record. He should not make things worse by going on proposing preposterous things, as he has done in this debate. I advise him to go away and reflect
	on the many hours he has spent here, to reflect on the wisdom of my hon. Friends the two Under-Secretaries and to do better next time.

Sadiq Khan: When the Justice Secretary has been in government for 13 years in a row and has had crime going down by 43% with 7 million fewer victims a year, I will be lectured by him about law and order.
	May I begin how the Justice Secretary began, with some thank yous? First, I thank the Front-Bench teams on both sides for their hard work during the Bill’s progress through Parliament. By and large, they have got on reasonably well, and have done a huge amount of hard work on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I thank them and their advisers for that. I also thank Back Benchers. Debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report have generally been well tempered.
	Two days ago, some hon. Members cheered the fact that there were three days on Report. I hope that they now regret being so cheery. Government statements—let us be frank, they were filibustering—caused elements of the Bill to be wholly unscrutinised, including provisions on remand, knife crime, women in prison, conditional fee agreements, and social welfare.

Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman referred to remand. May I take him on to bail? One of the Under-Secretaries gave an understanding in Committee that there would be an undertaking to deal with appeals against the granting of bail. We were told that if that was not dealt with on Report, it would be dealt with in the other place towards the conclusion of the Bill's scrutiny. When I asked the Minister about that, I was boorishly swatted away. Having been a member of the Public Bill Committee, I had tabled amendments on the matter, as did other hon. Members. The subject deserves better than being slapped down, and we should press for some answers today.

Sadiq Khan: I have been in correspondence with the Justice Secretary and, to be fair, he responded to my letter. I am happy to allow him to intervene to put on the record the assurance that he gave me.

Tom Clarke: I was not here during the incident to which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) referred, but I am sure that he was not swatted away. There was probably anxiety to finish the debate.
	I am happy to repeat the undertaking that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) gave then and in Committee. We accept that in principle there is a good case for saying that there should be appeals against the allowing of bail in the Crown court. We are working on the details of that, and we propose to table amendments in the House of Lords to meet that point. There is no difference in this case, and I have already written to say what we are striving to do. We intend to table an amendment to meet the wishes of the right hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), and some hon. Members on the Government Benches.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Justice Secretary for his clarification. I hope that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd is reassured. However, that illustrates the problem with the way in which the Bill has been dealt with. There have been three Green Papers, consultation, Second Reading and a long Committee stage upstairs, yet at the 11th hour the Government have tabled new clauses at the last possible moment which have not been subjected to the proper due processes that have existed in the House for generations, and for good reason. The way in which the Bill has been drafted, managed and taken through the House has been shambolic. The Bill is bad for the most vulnerable in society; it is bad for the victims of crime; it is bad for reforming offenders; and it is bad for the safety of our communities. That is why we oppose it, and will vote against giving it a Third Reading.
	If the Bill remains unchanged by the other place, it will lead to the dismantling of legal aid, which has been a critical part of the post-war welfare state. Some 600,000 or 700,000 people in England and Wales, depending on whose figures are used, will no longer be able to secure legal aid. It is being dismantled in a way that falls disproportionately on those most in need, at a time when they need it most. That is why so many people are furious at the proposals.
	I am less worried about the Justice Secretary losing friends; I am more worried about those who need justice not getting it. We and others have offered alternative savings in the legal aid budget, but the Government have dismissed the alternatives and have pushed ahead with slashing social welfare law: debt advice, housing advice, welfare benefits advice and employment advice. None of those who provide that advice are milking the gravy train and making huge sums of money.

Karen Buck: Does my right hon. Friend share my touch of cynicism about the impact of the legal aid cuts on social welfare and welfare benefits, given that the people who are represented and receive the support of the legal aid system in order to be represented in the appeals system have a significantly higher chance of winning their appeals? If they do not have that level of representation, there will be fewer appeals, which will have the happy effect for the Government of people not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend raises a very good point, which is about inequality of arms. These are some of the most vulnerable people who, with a bit of advice early on, will find that their quality of life is improved; and all the evidence suggests that it saves the taxpayer money as well. Huge parts of the country will be devoid of the resources required to access justice because law centres, citizens advice bureaux and small high street solicitors will close down. We will have, I am afraid, advice deserts around the country.
	But it does not stop there. In a further effort to save costs, the definition of “domestic violence” is being changed, which will lead to between 25,000 and 30,000 women who are the victims of domestic violence being denied legal aid. That could mean that vulnerable women and children who are the victims of domestic violence will continue to suffer as a direct consequence of the Bill.
	Another substantive objection to the Bill is the Government’s cherry-picking of Sir Rupert Jackson’s proposals on civil litigation. That will create an obstacle to those who rely on no win, no fee cases to challenge some of the powerful in our society. The Government have even ignored the protestations of those involved in high-profile cases, such as the family of Milly Dowler. Only this morning, on the “Today” programme, we heard the calmness with which Christopher Jefferies articulated how he benefited from a conditional fee agreement in pursuing claims against national newspapers—an option that will not be available to further victims of wrongdoing if this Bill is passed, because there will be nobody left to advise them.
	The Government’s policy on sentencing is an utter mess. Despite their claims, it does not bring clarity to the system, it is not based on common sense, and it will not increase public confidence. Totally abolishing indeterminate sentences takes away judges’ power to keep in custody the serious and violent offenders who put society most at risk by reoffending. These proposals in no way fill the gap left by the removal of indeterminate sentences. All this has been done in 73 minutes during the course of the past three days. The Justice Secretary’s policies on sentencing have been startlingly inconsistent over the past 12 months. Let us not forget that he began by saying that he had a target to reduce the prison population: first, the figure was 6,500; then it was 3,500; and then it was 3,000—and this week he has published an impact assessment giving the figure of 2,600.
	I cannot end without dealing with the Liberal Democrats. They speak sanctimoniously from their Benches and they brief sympathetic newspapers and communities that they will stand up to this Conservative Government, but when it comes to pushing their amendments to a vote, they withdraw them on the basis of meaningless assurances or simply vote with the Conservative Government. They should be ashamed.
	We will vote against giving this Bill a Third Reading. It is a shoddy Bill, and I sincerely hope that the other place is able to carry out major surgery on it.

David Burrowes: As we look forward to Christmas and see today the Third Reading of a criminal justice Bill, I am reminded of previous Government Bills that ended up as Christmas tree Bills with baubles being hung on them at any given opportunity as they went through Parliament. I am sure that as this Bill goes to the other place, Ministers will want to ensure that further baubles are not hung on it in the form of extra pieces of law that take the fancy of noble Lords, as well as any little elves.
	I am particularly grateful for two important baubles in clauses 113 and 114—the significant victory for victims of crime concerning knife crime and serious injury by dangerous driving. One could look at the bottom of those provisions and see “Made in Enfield” on them. Six years ago, the Galli-Atkinson family in my constituency came to me after the sad loss of their daughter, who was the victim of a road crash in 1997. They told me about the impact on them of losing their loved one through the actions of a dangerous driver. They had campaigned vigorously for changes in dangerous driving legislation and increases in penalties, but when they came to me
	there was unfinished business with a gap in legislation. That led to my tabling an amendment in 2006 to try to plug that gap by ensuring that there is a specific offence of serious injury by dangerous driving, and that is now in the Bill.
	I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that we now have a maximum sentence of five years for such offences. That deals with issues such as the very recent incident involving Rachel Jones, who is aged 13. She was crossing a road when she was hit by a car driven dangerously at 98 mph by Carl Smith, who was unlicensed and drunk—an all too familiar story, sadly, across this country. Rachel was left with severe brain damage, and she will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She has no movement in the right side of her body. Her mum, Sheri Ozdemir, described Smith’s two-year jail sentence as “a joke”. Thanks to the Bill, there need be no more jokes like that; such offences will be taken seriously and will attract a five-year sentence.
	Clause 114 deals with knife crime. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for championing this issue locally and nationally, and raising awareness in Enfield and elsewhere of the prevalence of knife crime—

Karl Turner: What about me?

David Burrowes: I was talking about knife crime, but I also pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on injury caused by dangerous driving. He made his case very well in Committee, and I recognise my omission.
	Knife crime is a real issue; I have seen many cases going through the youth courts. Sadly, there seems to have been a blind spot when it comes to sentencing, however. There has not been uniform enforcement of the law in this area, and there is a need to plug that gap. Under clause 114, anyone carrying a knife who is threatening and endangering life is likely to go to prison. If they are 16 or over, they will have to go to prison unless there are exceptional circumstances. Yes, we must pay due regard to the circumstances of young people, but the intention of the clause is that a custody threshold will have been reached. That has been welcomed in Enfield and across the country.
	The Bill is good news for the victims of knife crime and of dangerous driving. The duties in the Bill relating to compensation are now going to be systemic, and that is important to the victims of crime. Prisoners will need to consider their victims as they serve their sentences; when they earn money, it will go into a victims’ fund. We will also at last see an open door to businesses, ensuring that prisons will work. The prisons Minister joined me in celebrating the 2,000th graduate from the National Grid young offender programme. Those people are now getting into real work and getting out of crime. Their reoffending rate is a very low percentage, compared with the national average. The Bill opens up the way for projects such as those, and many more. On prisons, we want to say that we are not locking out the community; we are open for business.
	This is a reforming Bill; it does not simply seek to introduce more legislation without due regard. As we look to the new year, I want there to be a resolution that
	we shall not be coming back to the House next year with another piece of criminal justice legislation. I commend the sentencing part of the Bill to the House.

Chris Bryant: One of the most important things that the House can ever afford to the citizens of this country is equal and fair access to justice. Notwithstanding the remarks of the Lord Chancellor, I believe that the Bill will make it more difficult for my constituents to have access to justice.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	I shall not go into the issue of legal aid, but I want to speak briefly about conditional fee agreements. The Lord Chancellor was absolutely right to say that it was a Conservative Government who introduced them, and they were right to do so. In privacy and defamation cases, the awards are for the most part very small. In privacy cases, they are universally small. No privacy case has ever involved an award of more than £60,000, yet such cases cost many hundreds of thousands of pounds to take to court. Similarly, the vast majority of awards in defamation cases come in at less than £50,000. A few get up to £100,000, and of course prominence is given in the press to the much bigger ones.
	I am sure that it is not the Lord Chancellor’s intention, but the danger in the Government’s proposals is that lawyers will simply not be able to take on such cases. Yes, they might take on cases such as the Dowlers or Christopher Jefferies, because they are open and shut cases, but in the vast majority of the cases relating to phone hacking, people are already terrified of taking an action because they do not want to have to go through the whole business of having their privacy re-explored by the national newspapers and in court. Those people will have no opportunity in the future. I should tell the House that I myself have used a conditional fee agreement, and that if it were not for lawyers being prepared to act on that basis, there is no way that the whole phone hacking scandal would have been exposed.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 306, Noes 228.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 8 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Armenia) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (China) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ethiopia) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.

Income Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Aircraft Crew) (Brazil) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Hungary) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.

Olympic Games and Paralympic Games

That the draft London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 10 October, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 9 November, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motions may continue, though opposed, until the moment of interruption and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Stephen Crabb.)

UNIVERSITY TECHNICAL COLLEGES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Robert Halfon: I am incredibly grateful for this debate. I spoke about apprenticeships and vocational training in my maiden speech, and have campaigned regularly since joining the House last year for apprenticeships and apprenticeship rights. I have now worked for many months behind the scenes with Harlow college, Anglia Ruskin university and employers in my constituency to apply for a university technical school in Harlow, which I will talk more about later.
	Although universal technology colleges have not yet received the same media attention as free schools and the huge expansion of the academy programme, they are an equally profound reform of our school system. They are hugely popular, and something that we should think about in their own right.
	I want to make three points. First, for decades we allowed vocational education to decline. Secondly, for growth, skills and jobs, UTCs represent the reform that we need. Thirdly, the results are positive, and we should support a massive roll-out of UTCs around the United Kingdom. When the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) called the general election in 2010, there were nearly 1 million young people unemployed. The same is broadly true today. However, youth unemployment is not a recent crisis. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that it has grown steadily worse and worse over the past 10 years. In Essex, in particular, nearly 4,000 young people are not in employment, education or training. My constituency is one of the worst affected towns. We have allowed our skills base and vocational education to decline.
	In the past 10 years in Austria and Germany, one in four businesses offered apprenticeships to young people, but in England that figure was just one in 10.

Mark Reckless: I am listening with great sympathy to what my hon. Friend says about his constituency, because in my area of Medway we have had a similar problem with the closure of the dockyard 25 years ago. We lost an enormous employer that had trained hundreds and thousands of apprentices, so for us, UTCs would provide a new opportunity to develop in that area. With the Royal School of Military Engineering and MidKent college, there is a real partnership approach. I look forward to learning—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is developing a most interesting argument, but I want to hear Mr Halfon.

Robert Halfon: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that my remarks later will address some of his points.
	Thanks largely to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), the Government have increased the number of apprentices to a record level this year—up
	50% to 442,700, with increases at all levels and age groups. However, we are starting from a low base. In 2009 there were about 11 apprentices for every 1,000 workers. In France that figure was 17, in Austria 33, in Australia 39, and in Germany 40. In 2009 our young people were four times worse off for apprenticeships than young people in Germany.
	Considering that the Berlin wall fell only 20 years ago, that is deeply shocking and shows just how uncompetitive the UK economy has become. For years Germany reaped the benefits of its skills policy and a culture that valued apprentices and gave prestige to vocational learning. Germany built up its manufacturing and hi-tech industry while we lost out, not only under the previous Government but, honestly, during the 1990s. I agree with the analysis of Lord Baker, who was one of our finest Education Secretaries and was, in many ways, the forefather of the UTC movement, along with the late Ron Dearing. Lord Baker wrote in the Yorkshire Post in 2008:
	“One thing our country has missed out on is good vocational schools. Several attempts have been made since the 1870s, but they have generally fallen by the wayside. The 1944 Butler Education Act established three types of school—grammar, secondary modern and technical, but the first to disappear was the technical school as it had become”—
	to quote the Latin—
	“‘infra-dig’. Ironically, this English pattern was adopted by Germany in 1945 and became very successful: their youngsters who attend technical schools acquire skills in engineering, construction, manufacturing and design. Germany’s technical schools today have more applicants than their grammar schools and Germany produces several times the number of qualified technicians than the UK.”
	We simply cannot afford to keep producing generation after generation of rootless university graduates with purely academic qualifications who lack the skills that industry needs.
	What are UTCs, and why will they succeed where other attempts have failed? As Lords Baker and Adonis said when first proposing the UTC model, we need a vocational route that is rigorous, attractive and as prestigious as the best academic routes. That simply does not exist in our current schools system. As the Prime Minister put it recently, the expansion of UTCs will be
	“the next great poverty-busting structural change we need…offering first-class technical skills to those turned off by purely academic study.”
	However, the key reform is that major local employers, especially in manufacturing and industry, will help to write the curriculum, which has never been tried before. As the recent schools White Paper said:
	“Pupils at the JCB Academy in…Staffordshire, will study a curriculum designed to produce the engineers and business leaders of the future…They will complete engineering tasks that have been set by JCB and other Academy partners including Rolls-Royce, Toyota and Network Rail.”
	Early results are positive. They prove that UTCs are an instrument of social justice, as well as economic efficiency. At the JCB academy, for example, students wear business suits. There are reports that truancy has been reduced significantly and GCSE results, particularly in the core subjects of English and Maths, have massively improved.
	As Lord Baker said a few weeks ago,
	“10,000 students are now set to attend University Technical Colleges by 2015”.
	That means 10,000 fewer youngsters on the dole, and 10,000 more students learning the high-tech skills of the future to support British industry, manufacturing, and growth.

Jim Shannon: We are fortunate in Northern Ireland to have technical colleges—the South Eastern Regional college campus in Newtownards is an example—that give young people exactly what the hon. Gentleman is referring to: an opportunity to train, build their confidence and get a job outside, or be directed towards one. I encourage him to look up the South Eastern Regional college website to see exactly what he hopes to achieve in action.

Robert Halfon: I would be delighted to look at that website, and I would like to study it more, because it is good to see successful examples in action.
	So far, 18 new UTCs have received support from the Education Secretary, with 13 announced last month, and 130 companies are supporting them, which I think is a record in industrial investment. For the past three years the Baker Dearing Educational Trust has worked with the Department for Education, the private sector, universities and further education colleges to build the network. The Chancellor has doubled the funding for UTCs and found money for at least 24. The Opposition always go on about cuts and the legacy of youth unemployment—left by the last Government, as I have mentioned—but we are talking about a concrete investment of at least £150 million pounds, with more funds levered in from the private sector, to tackle that very issue. This is not small beer.

Jonathan Lord: I agree with the thrust of everything that my hon. Friend is saying, so is it not disappointing that at least one union leader in the education sector has come out against UTCs? Is that not incredible?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is almost a mind reader, because I was about to say that it is disappointing that, not so long ago, John Bangs of the National Union of Teachers said of UTCs:
	“There is a real fear about a move towards selection by division, selection by direction and selection by assumption, with these routes being mapped out for kids for evermore”
	That is the mindset of the left, which we have to consign to the dustbin, because UTCs will create opportunity and social justice for everyone. He is also wrong, because there are no tests to enter a UTC at 14: they are inclusive, not exclusive. To be fair, it is no accident that the Baker Dearing Educational Trust is a cross-party project that is strongly supported by Lord Adonis—who, although he is from the other side of the fence, is someone I admire greatly. The chief executive officer of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, Peter Mitchell, was a head teacher for 18 years in Walsall and Staffordshire. He turned round a failing school and was mentioned twice in the chief inspector’s report as “outstanding”. I believe that the UTC movement should unite the House, not divide it.
	In conclusion, I want to talk briefly about Harlow’s bid for a UTC, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Harlow is a new town. It was built after the
	second world war, with a vision to change people’s lives and create jobs and growth, but its potential is still unfulfilled. School results have risen sharply over the past 10 years. Most secondary schools now perform around the national average, and this year two secondary schools became academies. I am sure that the Minister will have watched the excellent recent television programme about Passmores school.
	Harlow college is now widely recognised as one of the best further education colleges in the country, with pass rates exceeding 99.5%. Anglia Ruskin university opened in the town this term a campus, which now has approximately 200 students studying for degrees. Wherever I go in Harlow, parents are delighted with the idea of a new apprentice school, which is exactly what it is, and they have no ideological objections. In fact, the Harlow bid for a UTC is not opposed by the local state schools. Harlow council and Essex county council have said that they support UTCs, and would like to see a UTC in Harlow.
	In the first round, we assembled a strong bid, but found out only very late in the process that Harlow was to benefit from an enterprise zone, specialising in bio-tech and medical technology. In his feedback, Lord Hill was very fair and made the point that we should now reflect the new enterprise zone in our bid. That was the right decision; it is worth taking the time to get the bid right.
	The Harlow partners are responding to that feedback. Anglia Ruskin is broadening its university courses, to meet the needs of the emerging “MedTech” enterprise zone, with firms like Bupa Home Healthcare. Harlow council is delivering the proposed “MedTech” campus—a specialised industrial estate, which will employ the highly skilled technicians that a UTC provides. Harlow already has several biotech and pharmaceutical firms, such as GlaxoSmithKlein, and is in the London-Cambridge science corridor. We have several strong local hospitals—primarily Princess Alexandra hospital and the Rivers private hospital in Sawbridgeworth. The Health Protection Agency is considering a move to Harlow, partly because of its own financial position, and partly because of the enterprise zone. I hope that in due course it too will have a need for medical technicians and engineers. In the second wave of UTC applications we hope to include medical technology as one of the Harlow specialisms, and to submit an even stronger bid. I hope that the Minister was listening very carefully to that last statement.
	If there is one thing that I would urge the Minister to do, it would be to go much further and much faster. As the Baker Dearing Educational Trust has said:
	“The Government has committed to funding 24 UTCs. But we hope to see 100 within five years.”
	We know that public spending is constrained, but UTCs offer us the chance to get back to the great vision of Rab Butler, who sought to establish a high-quality technical education in Britain for the first time. It is worth quoting what Rab Butler said in this very House about his Bill in 1944:
	“It is very wrong that in so many parts of England, particularly in industrial areas, which I have visited myself, that decades have been allowed to elapse before the technical development necessary for education in those areas has come to anything at all. There are many towns and cities I have been to in which the technical college has always been the mirage in the distance across the other side of the desert. We cannot allow that state of affairs to go on, and that is why we insist that there should be a proper development of technical education...Compared to our competitors, friends
	and enemies, we shall…depend more than anything else on the skill of our people...therefore…we must concentrate upon producing the most highly-skilled technologists the world can show.”—[
	Official Report
	, 23 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1086.]
	Exactly the same is true today.
	It is not enough just to support and fund UTCs; we have to evangelise about them. Just the other week the statement on UTCs was tacked on to the end of the statement on free schools at the end of a long day—just after the former Defence Secretary had also addressed the House. UTCs, however, are not just an extension of free schools; they will transform our skills base and the lives of young people, and they will be a conveyor belt to professional apprenticeships. They are the phase 1 of an apprentice revolution in Britain and the reaction from the public—parents, students and others—has been unbelievably positive. That is why they have to be centre-stage, not backstage. When the second round is announced next year—including Harlow, I hope—I would like UTCs to get a separate statement in their own right, showing that they are a forceful answer to the youth unemployment that we have inherited. They will then prove that the apprenticeships are no longer second class, and are now first class.
	I hope that, ultimately, every British student will be able to say—just as the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, said yesterday at a UTC reception in the House—“I only became an academic because I wasn’t clever enough to be practical.”

Rob Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate, and thank him for encouraging me to contribute to it, albeit very briefly. I am a great admirer of the work that he has done to promote education, both in the House and in his constituency. In the short time for which he has been a Member of Parliament, he has made an enormous contribution to education and to education debates.
	Yesterday I was fortunate enough to host a reception on the House of Commons Terrace for university technical colleges—which was also attended by my hon. Friend—together with Lord Baker of Dorking, who, as my hon. Friend said, is chairman of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, and is a passionate advocate of UTCs. That reception was instructive. It was attended by people from all over the country, from the great and the good to the UTC community and the many who want to be members of that community—and it was clear from the attendance at that reception that very many people want to join it. It was also highly informative to hear so many positive stories from those who have been involved in the UTCs that have been set up, and to learn how well the schools are doing.
	It was said at the reception that the UTCs had become a movement. I have the impression that there is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to harness the enormous energy and good will towards UTCs that emanates from the Government, universities, further education colleges and, in particular, private businesses. In many ways, that is not surprising, because the enthusiasm spans the political divide. In most respects, UTCs have secured a cross-party consensus. Both Lord Baker and Lord Adonis have, in different ways, put their fingerprints
	on their creation. Just to complete the all-party celebration, we have a coalition Government who are expanding the new schools and delivering a big increase in their number. I am delighted to say that my constituency will gain a UTC, and that large numbers of private businesses are supporting it. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—I hope he does not mind my mentioning this—told me that he had taken Lord Baker to his constituency to lobby him for the creation of a new UTC.
	As I have said, this is very much a cross-party movement, and I hope that it will continue to be so. Let me explain why. I think all parties clearly understand that Britain lags behind some of our European neighbours in its approach to technical education. My hon. Friend mentioned Germany—a country which, as a European industrial powerhouse, boasts a long history of taking its technical education seriously. Consequently, the Germans have benefited. Germany is now an incredibly successful exporter as a result of its continued investment in its technical skills base.
	UTCs offer our country a real opportunity to plug a gap, to catch up and to take the next step on a journey towards supporting, and indeed creating, a more technically based economy and industry. That journey has been damagingly slow for the UK. Rab Butler’s Education Act 1944 recognised secondary technical schools under the tripartite system, but there was little progress until Lord Baker’s city technology college scheme in the 1980s. In fact, it has taken more than 60 years for this whole strategy to reach the point of lift-off.
	Technical education has often not been taken seriously, and has frequently been recorded as secondary to the academic route. Well, we can finally put that right, and in so doing, plug a skills shortage and unlock the boundless potential of thousands of young people in this country whose gifts just happen to lie in the technical rather than the academic area.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) are well-informed and passionate promoters of education in their constituencies and throughout the country. I also listened intently to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), in which he extolled the importance of university technical colleges.
	UTCs are an innovative and important part of our school reforms. Through new academies for 14 to 19-year-olds, we are for the first time providing opportunities for school pupils to develop the technical knowledge and expertise that employers demand and our economy needs. UTCs offer pupils high-quality technical and vocational education and clear progression routes at 19 into either higher or further education, or work or apprenticeships.
	As Members will know, UTCs sit alongside free schools and academies at the heart of our ambitious reform of the school system. They aim to drive up educational attainment for all pupils and students, regardless
	of their background, and to improve our performance in relation to the highest-performing systems in the world. UTCs offer choice to parents and pupils, in particular those best suited to a more technical approach to education. They also provide competition to other schools, thus encouraging them to raise their game.
	UTCs specialise in subjects that need modern, technical, industry-standard equipment, such as engineering, construction, product design and life sciences. These disciplines are taught alongside business and ICT. Students also integrate academic study with practical education, and so study the core GCSEs alongside technical qualifications, thus covering the basics of English, mathematics, science and often a language and one of the humanities.
	UTCs are sponsored by a local university, employers and, in most cases, a further education college with strengths in the UTC’s specialist subject areas. That helps to ensure aspirational pathways to higher education, as well as access to opportunities within industry. UTCs are unique in that they develop their education around the needs of local employers and industry. Crucially, the UTC specialisms and the curriculum are designed by the university and employer sponsors. UTCs link local partners into the design and delivery of the education, and also provide mentoring and meaningful work experience for pupils. UTCs have much the same freedoms as free schools and academies. That allows them to be innovative, such as by choosing to employ engineers with an industry background alongside qualified teachers, by developing and delivering innovative projects for pupils, and by using an extended school day of 8.30 am to 5.30 pm and a longer school year of 40 weeks to prepare students for the world of work.
	Two UTCs are already open: the JCB academy in Staffordshire, and the Black Country UTC in Walsall. Thanks to the leadership shown by Lords Baker and Adonis, as well as the late Lord Dearing, coupled with the vision of Sir Anthony Bamford of JCB, the first UTC opened its doors in September last year. It specialises in engineering and business. Its belief is that no matter how good an engineer someone is, if they cannot do business too, they will not survive. That is the reality of manufacturing in the global economy, and we must prepare our school leavers to join it if they are to compete—and succeed—in the years ahead.
	The JCB academy is delivering its curriculum in partnership with a range of national and local employers. For instance, Rolls-Royce has set students the challenge of designing and manufacturing a small piston pump. This involves designing and manufacturing a specific rig, modelling in 3D animation software, producing drawings and then visiting the factory to see how the real ones are made. The whole project has allowed pupils to see their work from initiation to design and then on to delivery, with Rolls-Royce engineering apprentices helping pupils throughout. Senior Rolls-Royce staff presented to the pupils how a jet engine works and the realities of planning in local and international businesses. The benefits to pupils are clear: they get top-quality technical education. The benefits for Rolls-Royce are also undeniable. It gets the continuing professional development of engineers, graduates and apprentices; an increased pupil awareness of Rolls-Royce as an employer; and a role in helping to shape education in the region. This is leading the way in how employers are now getting involved in UTCs up and down the country.
	The second UTC that opened earlier this term is now providing similar opportunities for its pupils in one of the most deprived areas of the black country. There, the partnership between Siemens, Walsall college and the university of Wolverhampton is reinvigorating the black country’s engineering heritage. It is, of course, early days, with one school open for just half a term and one open for just a year and a half, but already we are beginning to see the effect of the approach, and it is impressive. The JCB academy reports exemplary behaviour and attendance, as pupils are engaged in their lessons. That positive impact is found not just in the technical subjects, as standards of English and maths look to be on the rise as well. We look forward to hearing their results next summer.
	On 10 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the next wave of UTCs due to open in 2012 and 2013 across the country. Between them, they will provide a new generation of school leavers with the technical expertise that industry demands. More than 130 major national and local employers were involved in developing these successful projects—that is a truly immense contribution from industry in our education system. These UTCs will join the two that are already open and three projects in Hackney, Aston and Greenwich that were previously approved. The new projects ensure there will now be UTCs in every region. Russell group
	universities are joining companies such as Rolls-Royce, Procter & Gamble and BlackBerry, and outstanding colleges and academies. The first of these new UTCs will open at the start of the next academic year and the rest will open the following year.
	My hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be aware of the huge interest in one of these new UTCs in particular—the Silverstone academy. It will be based within the grounds of the 800 acres of the Silverstone circuit, it will cater for 540 pupils when at full capacity and it will specialise principally in high-performance engineering and motorsport. It is sponsored by Tresham college of further and higher education, the university of Northampton and Silverstone Circuits Ltd, and it is due to open in September 2013. It will be a unique establishment that will allow students to work alongside nationally and internationally renowned engineering businesses already located at the circuit. It will provide opportunities for students to access work experience and to progress on to a wide and diverse range of job opportunities or further and higher education. The UTC expects significant demand from pupils; indeed, it has already received inquiries and that is before—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).